UC-NRLF 


SB    727    5bM 


Maryland's  Attitude 


Struggle  for  Canada 


J.  WILLIAM  BLACK 


Studies  in  Histortcal&PglitigalSgienci 


op 


&> 


LIB  R  ARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

GIFT    OF" 


t 


Received        JAN    26  189&  ,  189     .  CJ 


4     Accessions  A5:5riJlf£L.      Shelf  No '. 

C* *0> 


VII 


Maryland's  Attitude  in  the 
Straggle  for  Canada 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 


IN 


Historical  and  Political  Science 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  present  History.— Freeman 


TENTH  SERIES 
VII 


Maryland's  Attitude  in  the 
Struggle  for  Canada 


By  J.  WILLIAM  BLACK,  Ph.  D. 

Associate  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  Oberlin  College 


university; 

baltimore 
The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 

PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 

July,    1898 


5QII4-2- 


Copyright,  1892,  by  the  Johns  Hopkins  Press. 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 


PREFACE 


This  paper  is  a  study  of  the  attitude  of  Maryland  in  the 
French  and  Indian  War.  Maryland  failed  to  do  her  duty  in 
that  great  international  struggle  between  the  French  and 
English  for  the  possession  of  North  America,  and  it  was 
chiefly  due,  first,  to  the  narrow  and  niggardly  policy  of  the 
Provincial  Assembly,  and  secondly,  to  the  dissensions  of 
the  Province  with  the  Proprietary  government  for  the  pur- 
pose of  limiting  and,  perhaps,  overthrowing  Proprietary 
rule.  The  recent  publication  of  portions  of  the  Maryland 
Archives,  under  the  able  editorship  of  Dr.  William  Hand 
Browne,  has  rendered  interesting  parts  of  the  history  of 
Maryland  accessible  to  students.  The  Sharpe  Correspond- 
ence (Vols.  I.  and  II.)  covers  the  period  from  1753  to  1761. 
It  contains  much  valuable  information  regarding  Maryland's 
policy  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  and  helps  to 
explain  the  motives  of  her  peculiar  conduct.  It  has  been  my 
purpose  in  this  paper,  therefore,  to  present  briefly  the  results 
of  a  study  of  the  Sharpe  Correspondence  and  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Assembly  during  these  years,  for  the  purpose  of 
throwing  new  light  upon  Maryland  politics  at  that  time. 
Since  Maryland's  behavior  was  due  largely  to  disputes  with 
the  Proprietary,  I  have  attempted  to  trace  each  dispute  from 
its  origin,  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  correct  understanding  of  the 
controversies  of  the  time.  We  shall  find  that  out  of  what 
was  really  a  derelict  and  obstructive  policy  developed  a 
commendable  spirit  of  resistance  in  1765,  which  led  finally  to 
independence.  The  sources  that  have  been  most  serviceable 
to  me  in  this  study  are : — Archives  of  Maryland :  Corre- 


6  Preface. 

spondence  of  Governor  Sharpe,  Vols.  I.  and  II.;  Assembly 
Proceedings,  first  three  volumes  of  Archives,  and  especially 
the  Journals  of  the  Lower  House  between  1753-1758 ; 
Council  Proceedings,  1692-1694;  Bacon,  Laws  of  Maryland, 
1637-1765;  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  Vols.  VI.  and 
VIL;  Dinwiddie  Papers,  being  Vols.  III.  and  IV.  of  Virginia 
Historical  Society  Collections ;  Franklin's  works,  and  other 
authorities,  references  to  which  are  made  in  the  foot-notes. 

J.  W.  B. 


CONTENTS 


I.  Introduction  :  page. 

Maryland  a  Proprietary  Colony 9 

Frederick,  Lord  Baltimore 10 

Sharpe,  Governor  of  Maryland 11 

Strength  and  Resources  of  the  Province,  Defenses 11 

Attitude  of  the  People  toward  their  Government 12 

Development  of  Representative  Government 12 

II.  French  and  Indian  War  : 

Backwardness  of  Maryland 15 

French  and  English  Claims 15 

Ohio  Company 16 

Maryland's  Aid  requested  ;  Her  Inactivity 16 

Albany  Congress 18 

Maryland  votes  £6000 19 

Gov.  Sharpe  proposes  a  Poll  Tax  or  Stamp  Duty 20 

Union  to  be  enforced  by  Parliament 21 

Lack  of  Unity  among  the  Colonies 21 

Braddock's  Defeat ;  Danger  of  the  Province 24 

The  Activity  of  Other  Colonies 25 

III.  "  Bones  of  Contention." 

The  Assembly  vs.  the  Lord  Proprietary 27 

Causes  of  Maryland's  Inactivity 27 

Revenues  of  the  Proprietary :  Territorial 27 

Concessions  of  the  Province 28 

1.  Collection  by  the  Lord  Proprietary  of  Taxes  regarded  as  uncon- 

stitutional   28 

Port  or  Tonnage  Duty 28 

Tobacco  Tax 30 

2.  Interference  with  the  Colony's  Right  to  Levy  Taxes 35 

Ordinary  Licenses 35 

Tariff  on  Convicts 40 

3.  Paper  Money  Controversy 43 

Assembly  displays  its  Ignorance  of  the  Principles  of  Exchange  45 

4.  Refusal  of  the  Proprietary  to  share  the  Burdens  of  Taxation. . .  46 

Action  of  the  Assembly  on  Supplies 46 

Private  Subscriptions 47 


8  Contents. 

Assembly  wins  a  Point 48 

1756,  a  vote  of  £40,000 49 

The  Land  Tax 49 

Taxation  of  Proprietary  Estates 50 

Lord  Baltimore's  Indifference  and  Parsimony  recoil  upon  him  52 
Wisdom  of  Sharpe's  Course,  although  he  allows  the  Assem- 
bly to  score  another  Point  against  the  Proprietary 53 

5.  Pennsylvania's  Influence  upon  Maryland 53 

Land  Tax  in  Pennsylvania  ;  a  Concession  secured 54,  56 

Maryland  adopts  Pennsylvania's  Tactics 56 

Franklin's  Influence 58 

Pennsylvania's  Victory  over  her  Proprietaries 59 

IV.  Conclusion: 

Dawn  of  Independence 60 

Maryland's  Indifference  and  "Unseasonable  Parsimony"  in 

the  French  and  Indian  War 60 

Crown  Requisitions ;  Treatment  of  Roman  Catholics 61,  64 

Opposition  to  Proprietary  Rule 66 

Where  was  the  Assembly  at  fault  ? 66 

Explanations ;  the  Proprietary  at  fault 67 

Real  Designs  of  the  Assembly  : 

To  limit  Proprietary  Authority 68 

To  play  into  the  Hands  of  the  Crown 68 

Indications  of  this : 

Petitions  to  the  Crown 69 

Calvert's  Proposition  to  bribe  the  Assembly 69 

Franklin's  Second  Mission  (1764)  to  London 72 

No  Desire  for  Union  or  Independence 72 

Oppression  of  Great  Britain  ;  Stamp  Act 73 

Union  a  Necessity 73 

Maryland's  Opposition  to  Proprietary  Rule  a  Preparation  for 

the  Struggle  with  the  Crown,  and  finally  Independence. ...  73 


'4^  OP  THB        - 

rUNIYERSXTtf 

MARYLAND'S  ATTITUDE  IN  THE  STRUGGLE 
FOR  CANADA. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  French  and  Indian  War  in  America  began  in  1754 
and  continued  until  1760,  when  Canada  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  English.  The  French  were  successful  for  the  first 
four  years  of  the  war,  and  the  frontiers  of  Virginia,  Mary- 
land and  Pennsylvania  were  at  the  mercy  of  the  enemy 
during  that  time.  The  length  of  the  struggle  surprises  one ; 
certainly  the  English  were  stronger  than  the  French  in 
numbers  and  resources,  and  might  have  repelled  the  aggres- 
sions of  the  French  in  America  by  one  or  two  decisive  blows. 
It  is  true  that  England  did  not  lend  a  helping  hand  in  this 
colonial  war  until  1755,  and  at  first  sent  out  several  inefficient 
commanders,  but  the  chief  cause  of  ill-fortune  was  the  failure 
of  the  colonies  to  cooperate  with  one  another  and  with  Great 
Britain.  While  the  colonies  were  organizing  or  trying  to 
organize,  the  French  were  advancing  under  good  leadership 
and  encircling  their  opponents. 

To  a  Marylander  studying  this  period  the  following  ques- 
tion suggests  itself:  How  did  my  State  behave  ?  Certainly 
Maryland's  welfare,  indeed  her  very  existence,  was  at  stake ; 
did  she  do  her  duty  ?  These  questions  will  be  discussed  in 
the  following  paper. 

Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  were  the  only  colonies  that 
remained  under  the  Proprietary  form  of  government  down  to 


10         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [316 

the  Revolution.  Maryland's  charter  was  a  very  liberal  one ; 
it  gave  large  and  extensive  powers  to  the  Proprietary,  while 
at  the  same  time  it  guaranteed  the  freemen  of  the  province  a 
voice  in  the  laws  by  which  they  were  to  be  governed ;  further, 
it  contained  one  important  and  significant  provision,  namely, 
that  no  "imposition,  custom  or  other  taxation,  rate,  or  con- 
tribution whatsoever "  should  be  laid  upon  the  province. 
Maryland  was  thus  secured  by  the  terms  of  her  charter  from 
an  imposition  of  any  kind  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain. 
Before  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  colonies, 
particularly  the  Southern  and  Middle  colonies,  acted  inde- 
pendently of  each  other  in  affairs  of  common  concern,  such 
as  defense  against  the  Indians.  A  union  of  all  the  colonies 
for  their  common  defense  had  more  than  once  been  suggested, 
and  efforts  leading  to  that  end  were  made  from  time  to  time. 
New  England,  for  many  reasons,  physical  and  otherwise,  was 
the  first  center  of  this  movement,  but  the  nearest  approach  to 
a  general  union  was  that  suggested  by  the  Albany  convention 
of  1754.  Indeed^  down  to  this  time  the  colonies  had  been 
unwilling  to  sacrifice  any  of  their  privileges  for  the  sake  of 
union,  but  with  the  progress  of  the  war  this  feeling  changed ; 
as  they  saw  their  welfare  threatened  and  their  rights  invaded, 
a  sense  of  common  interest  impelled  them  to  stand  shoulder 
to  shoulder  in  defending  their  territory.  It  proved  a  valuable 
lesson  to  them,  for  they  received  their  training  for  the  great 
conflict,  so  little  anticipated,  yet  so  soon  to  come.  The  Stamp 
Act  cemented  the  confederation  which  the  French  and  Indian 
War  had  begun. 

The  year  1751  marked  the  accession  of  Frederick,  sixth 
Baron  of  Baltimore,  as  Lord  Proprietary  of  Maryland.  He 
was  an  unworthy  scion  of  his  ancestors,  George  and  Cecilius 
Calvert.  We  find  very  few  letters  from  Frederick  among 
Gov.  Sharpe's  correspondence,  and  these  are  brief.  He 
always  appeared  indifferent  to  the  needs  and  welfare  of  his 
province,  caring  only  for  what  he  could  get  out  of  it,  and  his 
principal  instructions  to  Sharpe  were  to  see  to  the  prompt 


317]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        11 

collection  of  his  revenue   and  to  promote  the  interests  of 
certain  persons  designated  by  him.1 

In  1753  Horatio  Sharpe  became  Governor  of  Maryland, 
and  continued  in  that  office  until  1769,  occupying  a  position 
by  no  means  enviable  in  these  troublous  times.  The  Governor 
was  the  intermediary  between  the  Proprietary  and  the  people. 
He  was  forced  to  obey  the  instructions  of  the  Proprietor,  and 
was  usually  regarded  with  undeserved  dislike  and  suspicion 
by  the  Assembly  for  doing  his  duty.  Sharpe  steadily  followed 
the  difficult  path  of  duty,  however,  better  than  most  men  in 
a  like  station.  He  was  zealous  in  his  efforts  to  carry  out  the 
instructions  of  the  Crown,  of  the  Proprietary,  whose  sworn 
deputy  he  was,  and  at  the  same  time  to  appease  the  Assembly. 
Sharpe  did  all  he  could  to  arouse  the  Assembly  to  a  sense  of 
their  danger,  and  engaged  actively  in  raising  troops  and 
supplies  for  the  service.  He  was  constantly  meditating  on 
some  expedient  to  overcome  the  obstinacy  of  the  burgesses, 
sometimes  suggesting  that  a  poll-tax  or  stamp-tax  be  imposed, 
or  that  Parliament  should  take  measures  compelling  the  col- 
onies to  contribute  their  quotas.  Sharpe  even  advanced  from 
his  own  pocket  bounty  money  which  was  used  to  enlist  volun- 
teers for  frontier  service.  Subsequent  history  shows  that 
his  courage  and  fidelity  to  the  trusts  imposed  on  him  were 
rightly  respected. 

The  population  of  Maryland  in  1756,  as  given  by  Sharpe 
in  a  report  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  was  107,963  white  and 
46,225  black  inhabitants,  and  of  the  former,  Sharpe  estimates 
that  26,000  were  able  to  bear  arms,  all  exemptions  considered.2 
The  militia  of  the  province  numbered  16,500,  one-third  of 
these  being  destitute  of  arms  and  the  rest  but  poorly  equipped. 
Another  source  of  anxiety  to  Sharpe  was  his  ill  success  in 
securing  the  passage  of  a  good  militia  law  by  the  Assembly, 
for  the  people  were  poorly  armed,  undisciplined,  and  could 
not  be  compelled  to  serve.   As  Sharpe  said,  there  was  nothing 

1  Vide  Sharpe  Cor.  I.  (Archives  of  Md.),  1753-1757,  pp.  206,  127. 

2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  353. 


12         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [318 

in  Maryland  deserving  the  name  of  fortification;  Fort 
Cumberland  was  probably  the  nearest  approach  to  it,  but 
this  was  too  far  off  in  the  wilderness  to  be  of  any  great 
service.  The  military  defenses  of  Maryland  were  in  a  very 
precarious  state  ;  she  was  fourth  or  fifth  in  strength  among  the 
colonies,  but  this  strength  was  unorganized,  and  the  territory 
of  the  province  was,  as  said  before,  at  the  mercy  of  the  enemy. 
Let  us  look  briefly  at  the  attitude  of  the  province  toward 
its  government.  In  the  beginning  the  Proprietary  was  every- 
thing to  the  colony;  but  by  successive  steps  the  Assembly 
acquired  privileges  that  belonged  to  the  Lord  Proprietor  and 
made  itself  the  real  governing  body  of  the  province.  Though 
large  powers  were  given  to  the  Lord  Proprietor,  the  terms 
of  the  charter  provided  for  the  participation  of  the  colonists 
in  the  legislative  functions,  the  Crown  having  no  direct  super- 
vision over  the  colony.  To  Lord  Baltimore  and  his  heirs,  as 
Proprietors  of  Maryland,  was  granted  the  power  to  make 
laws  for  the  province  "by  and  with  the  advice,  assent,  and 
approbation  of  the  said  province,  or  the  greatest  part  of  them, 
or  of  their  delegates  or  deputies."  At  first,  the  Lord  Pro- 
prietary took  the  initiative  in  proposing  legislation;  the  laws 
proposed  were  ratified  or  rejected  at  a  mass-meeting  of  the 
freemen  of  the  province.  It  was  only  a  short  time,  however, 
till  representative  government  developed.  After  1638  the 
Provincial  Assembly  holds  the  initiative  in  legislation ;  to  the 
Proprietary  is  left  the  veto  power  only.  By  an  act  passed  at 
this  session,  provision  was  made  for  the  election  of  delegates 
to  the  House  of  Burgesses,  this  body  to  consist  of  represen- 
tatives elected  by  the  freemen  of  each  hundred,  together  with 
members  of  the  Council,  Lords  of  Manors,  and  any  other 
"gentleman"  summoned  by  special  writ  of  the  Proprietor.1 
In  April,  1650,  the  Assembly  met  in  two  distinct  branches ; 
the  Governor  and  his  Council  forming  the  Upper  House,  and 
the  Burgesses  the   Lower   House.2  The  Delegates,  or  Bur- 

1  Maryland  Archives,  Assembly  Proceedings,  1637-1664,  pp.  74,  75, 
81,  82. 
Ubid.,  p.  272. 


319]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        13 

gesses,  were  the  elective  representatives  of  the  people;  the 
Council,  which  formed  the  Upper  House,  represented  the 
Lord  Proprietor,  and  its  members  were  summoned  by  special 
writs.  They  were  the  advisers  of  the  executive,  and  at  the 
same  time  formed  one  branch  of  the  legislature.  Frequent 
wrangling  resulted  between  these  two  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature, the^one  being  the  protector  of  the  liberties  of  the 
people ;  the  other,  the  conservative  defenders  of  their  lord's 
prerogatives.  The  popular  branch  continually  gained  ground 
at  the  expense  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Lord  Proprietary,1 
and  by  1650  the  Lower  House  had  secured  firm  control  of 
legislation  in  Maryland.  This  is  evidenced  by  an  act  passed 
in  that  year,  whereby  it  was  enacted  that  "no  Subsidies,  ayde, 
Customes,  taxes,  or  impositions  shall  hereafter  bee  layd 
assessed,  leavyed  or  imposed  upon  the  freemen  of  this  Prov- 
ince or  on  theire  Merchandize  Goods  or  Chatties  without  the 
Consent  and  Approbation  of  the  freemen  of  this  Province 
their  Deputies  or  the  Major  parte  of  them,  first  had  and 
declared  in  a  General  Assembly  of  this  Province."2  In 
1689  the  Lord  Proprietor  lost  his  political  rights  in  the 
province  and  Maryland  became  and  remained  a  Crown  colony 
till  1715.  VDuring  this  time  Proprietary  government  lost 
much  of  its  prestige,  and  the  revenues  which  Lord  Balti- 
more was  still  allowed  to  enjoy  were  attacked  by  the  Assembly. 
Those  of  a  public  nature  it  desired  to  transfer  to  the  Crown, 
to  be  used  for  the  support  of  the  province.  The  volume  of 
legislation  increases  largely  at  this  time,  and  we  notice  that 
laws  were  only  made  by  the  Assembly  for  short  periods; 
old  laws  were  continually  repealed  and  reenacted;  in  this 
way  the  Assembly  managed  to  keep  a  secure  hold  upon  the 
government  of  the  province.  Besides  they  enacted  against 
the   Catholics   severe   laws,  which  gave  oifense  to  a  large 

]An  act  of  1638  declared  that  a  General  Assembly  of  "  Freemen  of  the 
Province  "  should  have  "  like  power  priveledges  authority  and  Jurisdic- 
tion ...  as  the  house  of  Commons  within  the  Realm  of  England  "... 
Assembly  Proceedings,  1638-1664,  p.  75. 

2  Assembly  Proceedings,  1650,  p.  302. 


14         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [320 

element  of  the  population.  It  is  true  this  was  the  looked 
for  result  of  Protestant  ascendency  and  narrow-minded  legis- 
lation; but  it  was  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  Proprietary 
government,  and  rebuked  the  liberal  policy  of  the  Lords 
Proprietors. 

By  the  time  the  Proprietary  government  was  restored,  in 
1715,  Maryland  had  almost  learned  to  do  without  it;  neither 
did  its  restoration  give  rise  to  any  marked  joy  or  loyalty  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  nor  did  it  regain  its  former  political 
status.  From  now  until  the  French  and  Indian  War  we  note 
the  increasing  dissensions  between  the  Assembly  and  the 
Proprietary ;  many  of  the  privileges  of  the  latter  were  gradu- 
ally and  imperceptibly  slipping  away.  In  1739,  during 
Governor  Ogle's  administration,  an  attack  was  begun  upon 
the  revenues  of  the  Proprietary,  and  was  only  concluded  by 
the  overthrow  of  the  Proprietary  government  itself.  This 
leads  us  to  an  explanation  of  the  causes  that  underlay  the 
conduct  of  Maryland  during  that  war.  The  Lower  House 
had  become  the  mainspring  of  the  provincial  government ; 
it  assumed  the  protection  of  the  liberties  of  its  constituents, 
endeavored  to  make  laws  for  the  people  and  not  for  the  Pro- 
prietor, and  not  only  defended  their  rights  and  privileges 
from  any  encroachment  by  the  Proprietary,  but  in  turn 
encroached  upon  the  prerogatives  of  that  government.  The 
Assembly  now  saw  and  decided  to  take  advantage  of  a  favor- 
able opportunity  to  wrest  from  Proprietary  rule  in  Maryland 
the  last  vestiges  of  its  power. 


CHAPTER  II. 

FRENCH  AND  INDIAN  WAR. 

That  the  events  which  follow  may  be  clearly  understood, 
it  will  be  advisable,  first,  to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  early 
period  of  the  French  and  Indian  War,  pointing  out  the  part 
played  by  Maryland. 

The  French  and  Indian  War  was  a  struggle  between  two 
great  nations  for  the  possession  of  the  North  American  I 
Continent.  Every  colony  was  deeply  concerned  in  the  issue 
of  the  contest.  The  French  were  the  first  to  explore  the 
Mississippi  valley,  several  expeditions  being  made  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  claims  of  the 
English,  of  course,  were  based  on  the  discoveries  of  the 
Cabots,  Ealeigh,  Gilbert  and  others,  and  the  colonial  charters 
vaguely  describe  the  grants  to  the  colonies  as  extending 
westward  to  the  " South  Sea"  or  extending  between  two 
parallels  of  latitude  "  from  sea  to  sea."  '  The  old  grudges 
between  France  and  England  were  thus  carried  to  America, 
and  the  most  hostile  feelings  existed  between  the  two  all 
through  the  eighteenth  century,  especially  from  the  peace  of 
Utrecht,  1713.  Toward  the  middle  of  the  century  each  of 
the  two  nations  made  haste  to  occupy  as  much  territory  as 
possible.  A  collision  could  not  long  be  avoided.  The 
French  asserted  their  sovereignty  to  the  territory  west  of  the 
Alleghanies,  and  strove  to  carry  out  the  gigantic  scheme  of 
connecting  Canada  and  the  great  lakes  with  Louisiana  and' 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  by  a  cordon  of  fortified  posts  for  the 
purpose  of  hemming  in  the  English  colonies  and  preventing 
their  expansion  toward  the  west.  It  was  their  steady  advance 
in  realizing  this  idea  that  so  terrified  the  colonists. 

Charters  of  Va.  and  Mass.     Dinwiddie  Papers,  Vol.  I.,  381. 


16         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [322 

The  conflict  was  precipitated  by  the  formation  of  the  Ohio 
Company  (1748),  which  was  organized  by  a  party  of  Vir- 
ginians ;  to  them  was  given  a  grant  of  500,000  acres  on  the 
Ohio  river,  chiefly  to  the  north  of  it  and  between  the 
Monongahela  and  Kanawha.  Their  purpose  was  trade  with 
the  Indians,  and  in  return  for  the  privileges  given  them 
they  agreed  to  induce  migration  thither  and  build  a  fort  to 
protect  the  settlement.  The  French  took  active  steps  to 
repel  this  advance  of  the  English  into  disputed  territory,  and 
occupied  the  Ohio  valley  with  their  forces  at  once.  As  this  . 
was  a  direct  attack  upon  Virginia  land,  Gov.  Dinwiddie  made 
preparations  to  oppose  it,  and  duly  informed  the  Lords  of 
Trade  of  their  encroachments,  their  apparent  designs,  and  the 
alarm  that  existed  amoDg  the  colonists.  Some  supplies  were 
sent  him,  and  at  the  same  time  it  was  suggested  that  the 
various  Assemblies  of  the  colonies  should  send  representa- 
tives to  a  common  meeting-place  for  the  purpose  of  making 
a  treaty  with  the  Six  Nations l  and  providing  measures  for 
defense.  Gov.  Sharpe  of  Maryland  received  a  letter 2  from 
jj  Lord  Holdernesse,  Secretary  of  State,  warning  him  of  the 
approaching  hostilities  of  the  French  and  Indians  on  the 
western  frontier,  urging  him  to  be  on  the  alert,  to  put  him- 
self in  close  communication  with  other  Governors,  and  when 
occasion  demanded  it,  to  convene  his  Assembly  and  to  bring 
before  it  the  necessity  of  mutual  assistance  and  cooperation. 
The  same  communication  was  sent  to  all  the  provincial  gov- 
ernors, and  from  this  time  on  Maryland  was  constantly 
appealed  to  by  Virginia  and  the  British  government.  In 
October,  1753,  Gov.  Dinwiddie  sent  Major  George  Washing- 
ton to  the  commander  of  the  French  forces  on  the  Ohio,  "  to 
know  his  reasons  for  his  invading  His  Majesty  of  Great 
Britain's  Dominions." 3  The  mission  of  Washington  proved 
unsuccessful,  and  Gov.  Dinwiddie  then  began  active  prepar- 

1  The  famous  Indian  Confederacy  of  Western  New  York. 

2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  L,  3,  4. 

*lbid.,  I.,  10.     Dinwiddie  Papers,  I.,  49,  note. 


323]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        17 

ations  for  defense.  In  this,  however,  he  met  with  con- 
siderable opposition  from  his  own  Assembly,  and  secured  a 
vote  of  supplies  with  difficulty.  He  was  much  embarrassed 
in  his  plans,  and  as  the  exigencies  of  the  times  called  for 
cooperation  on  the  part  of  the  governors  of  the  colonies,  he 
sent  -letters  to  them,  in  which  he  recounted  the  results  of 
Washington's  mission,  the  strength  and  designs  of  the  French, 
and  asked  immediate  aid.1  In  April,  1754,  hostilities  began, 
with  the  capture  by  the  French  of  an  English  fort  which  ■ 
Gov.  Dinwiddie  had  ordered  to  be  built  at  the  junction  of 
the  Alleghany  and  Monongahela  rivers,  and  which  the  con- 
querors strengthened  considerably  and  named  Fort  Duquesne, 
after  the  Governor  of  Canada.3  Dinwiddie's  energies  were  . 
fruitless  for  the  time,  and  he  complained  bitterly  of  the  lack 
of  help ;  in  a  letter  to  James  Abercromby,  agent  of  Virginia 
at  London,  after  passing  a  compliment  upon  the  behavior  of 
North  Carolina,  he  writes, — "  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania,, 
two  Proprietary  governments,  do  nothing,  though  equally 
concerned  and  more  exposed  than  this  dominion.  .  .  .This  is 
an  affair  of  the  greatest  consequence  to  the  Nation  and  the 
Colonies  on  this  Continent."3  In  the  meantime,  a  body  of 
Virginia  militia,  with  Washington  second  in  command,  had 
been  sent  by  Gov.  Dinwiddie  to  protest  against  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  French  commander,  Contrecoeur,  and  on  the 
march  learned  that  the  fort  had  been  taken.  Washington 
defeated  a  party  of  French  under  de  Jumonville  in  a  pre- 
liminary skirmish ;  but  a  large  force  were  now  advancing 
from  Fort  Daquesne  to  attack  the  English,  and  Washing- 
ton, who  had  succeeded  to  the  chief  command,  fell  back  to 
Great  Meadows,  on  a  branch  of  the  Youghiogeny,  where  he 
awaited  the  enemy.  Here  he  hastily  erected  rude  defenses, 
and  gave  them,  from  the  nature  of  the  occasion,  the  name  of 
Fort  Necessity.     Washington,  however,  was  unable  to  with- 

1  Dinwiddie  Papers,  I.,  61-73. 

2 Fully  treated  in  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  197. 

3  Dinwiddie  Papers,  I.,  211. 


18         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [324 

stand  the  superior  numbers  of  the  French,  and  therefore 
surrendered  (July  3,  1754).  This  he  did  upon  honorable 
terms  and  returned  to  Virginia.1 

Meantime,  in  accordance  with  the  suggestions  of  the 
/  Board  of  Trade,  a  general  convention  was  held  at  Albany, 
June  19,  1754,  and  commissioners  were  present  from  seven 
colonies.  Maryland  was  among  this  number,  but  it  was 
with  difficulty  that  Sharpe  prevailed  on  the  Assembly  to  / 
provide  for  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Governor 
and  to  vote  a  purse  of  £500  as  a  present  to  the  Six  Indian 
Nations,  and  in  reference  to  his  proposition  that  they  aid 
Virginia  Sharpe  writes :  "  So  insuperably  indifferent  or 
perverse  were  they  that  all  they  consulted  was  how  to 
save  appearances  and  seem  to  be  disposed  to  encourage 
that  important  enterprise."2  The  purposes  of  the  con- 
vention were,  first,  to  make  a  treaty  with  the  Six  Nations ; 
and  secondly,  to  form  a  plan  of  concerted  action  among  * 
the  colonies  to  drive  away  the  French.  The  Indians 
were  appeased  with  presents.  The  second  object  was  then 
taken  up  and  debated,  and  a  union  of  all  the  colonies  was  j 
declared  necessary.  A  plan,  devised  by  Franklin,  was  pro- 
posed and  adopted.3  This  plan,  however,  provided  for  a 
perpetual  union,  which  was  certainly  premature,  and  Mary- 
land for  one  was  not  prepared  to  favor  it  j  in  consequence,  i 
her  Assembly  rejected  it  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  its  mem- 
bers. Nevertheless,  this  step  toward  uniting  the  colonies 
into  one  government  was  very  significant,  for  it  was  the 
forerunner  of  confederation.  The  Albany  congress  made  no 
preparations  for  defense,  but  decided  to  await  the  action  of 
Parliament  upon  the  scheme  for  union  which  had  been  pro- 
posed. The  surrender  of  Washington,  July  3,  1754,  caused 
considerable  alarm  to  the  Southern  provinces,  and  the  gov- 

1  For  terms  of  the  capitulation  of  Washington  vide  Sharpe  Cor.  I.,  78-79 
(extract  from  Calvert  Papers). 

2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I,,  69. 

3 Franklin's  plan  and  comments:   vide  H.  W.  Preston,  "Documents 
illustrative  of  American  History,"  pp.  170-187. 


325]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.  19 

ernors  bestirred  themselves  to  raise  men  and  supplies.    Gov. 
Dinwiddie  again  complains :  "What  a  poor  situation  am  I 
in,  in  executing  the  commands  of  his  majesty ;  no  assistance  } 
from  the  neighboring  colonies ;  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania 
so  obstinate  as  not  to  grant  any  supplies  whatever." 1     He 
said  that  Virginia  was  not  able  to  bear  the  burden  of  the 
war  alone,  and  had  already  suggested  on  June  18,  1754,  that  ^ 
Parliament  compel  each  colony  to  raise  a  proportionate  quota 
of  the  general  fund.     This  proposition  was  repeatedly  made 
by  him  to  the  Secretary  of  State  and  Board  of  Trade.     He 
writes  :  "  The  intolerable  obstinacy  of  our  neighboring  colo- 
nies and  their  disobedience  to  His  Majesty's  commands  is ' 
not  to  be  paralleled  in  history ;  if  they  had  entered  heartily 
into  the  affair,  I  am  assured  the  French  at  this  day  would 
have  been  drove  off  the  Ohio,  and  I  am   of  (the)  opinion, 
nothing  will  bring  them  to  their  duty  but  a  general  Poll  Tax 
of  2s.  6d.  sterling,  by  a  British  Act  of  Parliament."2     How- 
ever, Maryland,  whose  frontier  was  exposed  to  the  enemy, 
with  no  defenses  to  hinder  their  advance,  was  sufficiently  . 
aroused  to  a  sense  of  her  danger  to  vote  (February  25,  1754) ' 
a  supply  of  .£6000,  to  be  appropriated  to  the  aid  of  Virginia ; 
but  this  grant  was  conditional  upon  the  yielding  of  certain 
concessions  by  the  Proprietary  government.     The  Maryland 
Assembly  was  still  as  "  obstinate  "  as  ever. 

The  English  government,  aroused  by  the  imminence  of 
the  danger,  made  preparations  to  take  an  active  part  in  the 
campaign.  They  deemed  it  necessary  to  send  out  a  general 
officer  to  take  command,  for  it  was  thought  that  Sharpe  and 
the  other  colonial  governors  would  have  all  they  could  do  to 
enlist  men  and  secure  funds  from  their  Assemblies.  A  land 
expedition  against  Fort  Duquesne  and  a  naval  expedition  in 
North  American  waters  were  determined  upon ;  and  General 
Edward  Braddock  was  ordered  to  America  with  two  regi- 
ments to  take  command  of  the  land  forces  in  America. 

In  the  meantime,  Governor  Sharpe,  who  had  had  military 

1  Dinwiddie  Papers,  I.,  253.  2IMd.,  I.,  254. 


20         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [326 

experience,  was  appointed  to  the  chief  command,  with  the 
rank  of  lieutenant-colonel,  for  Maryland  was  looked  upon 
as  a  good  center  from  which  to  operate  against  the  French.1 
He  was  in  a  state  of  constant  anxiety,  but  did  his  best  to 
raise  forces  and  obtain  supplies  with  which  to  carry  out  his 
instructions  as  commander-in-chief.  But  Sharpe  by  no  means 
received  the  encouragement  he  had  hoped,  and  therefore 
could  not  expect  to  execute  his  commission  "  with  any  great 
eclat n;  "  I  wish  I  may  be  able  to  do  it,"  he  says,  "  with  some 
small  reputation."2  His  appointment,  however,  was  only  a 
temporary  one,  and  he  was  superseded  by  Braddock  upon 
the  latter's  arrival  on  February  20,  1755.  The  reception 
General  Braddock  met  was  far  from  encouraging. 

Sharpe  brooded  constantly  upon  some  remedy  for  the  per- 
verseness  of  colonial  Assemblies.  He  echoed  the  views  of 
Governor  Dinwiddie  and  others  as  to  the  proper  method  of 
securing  the  cooperation  of  the  colonies,  and  suggested  to 
Cecilius  Calvert,  uncle  and  secretary  of  Frederick,  Lord 
Baltimore,  September  15,  1754,  that  if  it  were  thought' 
proper  to  bring  in  a  bill  in  Parliament  to  compel  the  colo- 
nial governments  to  contribute  their  quotas,  one  of  the 
following  ways  might  be  proposed  to  raise  the  funds:  1.  By  • 
imposing  a  poll  tax ;  or,  2.  By  a  duty  on  the  importation  of 
spirituous  liquors ;  or,  3.  By  a  stamp  duty — on  deeds  and 
writings.  "  These  hints,"  he  says,  "  I  have  taken  the  liberty 
to  submit  to  you  in  case  the  British  Legislature  should 
think  proper  to  interfere  in  this  American  contention  more 
than  it  has  hitherto  done." 8  This  gives  evidence  of  the 
extremities  to  which  the  governors  were  driven,  but  radical 
measures  were  not  attempted  by  England,  and  indeed  it  is  I 
doubtful  if  they  could  have  been  enforced. .  Governor 
Sharpe  lived  to  see  his  suggestion  tried  and  fail.  The 
English  government  resorted  to  the  more  prudent  but  less 
imperative  method  of  Crown  requisitions.     It  was  expected 

^harpe's  commission,  vide  Sharpe  Cor.  I.,  73-74  (July,  1754). 
2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  110.  3Ibid.,  I.,  99. 


327]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         21 

that  the  raising,  subsisting  and  quartering  of  troops  raised  in 
a  province  should  be  provided  for  by  that  province,  but  that  j 
affairs  of  more  general  concern  should  be  paid  for  out  of  a 
<(  common  fund," 1  to  be  established  for  the  benefit  of  all 
the  colonies,  collectively,  in  North  America.  And  it  seems 
to  have  been  the  intention  of  Great  Britain  to  form  a  plan 
for  the  general  union  of  the  colonies  for  defense,  for  it  was 
mentioned  in  a  letter  from  Sir  Thomas  Robinson,  Secretary 
of  State,  to  Gov.  Sharpe,2  and  Gov.  Morris,  of  Pennsylvania, 
wrote3  to  Sharpe  that  he  had  received  hints  from  England 
that  a  plan  of  union  for  military  purposes  was  under  the  con- 
sideration of  the  ministry.  No  such  measures  were  put  intoi 
effect,  however ;  union  could  not  be  forced  upon  the  colonies 
in  accord  with  the  dictates  of  Parliament, — it  had  to  come 
from  within. 

During  this  period  of  their  history  the  lack  of  unity 
among  the  colonies  in  facing  a  danger  which  menaced  them 
all  alike  was  very  marked ;  but  in  one  thing  there  seemed  to 
be  considerable  unity,  and  that  was  the  almost  universal 
resistance  which  the  colonial  Assemblies  offered  to  their  gov- 
'ernors  when  attempting  to  carry  out  their  instructions.  We 
see  this  even  among  the  New  England  colonies,  but  especially 
south  of  New  York,  so  that  Gov.  Sharpe,  in  the  autumn  of 
1754,  said  that  by  this  time  he  had  learned  "not  to  entertain 
very  sanguine  hopes  of  the  resolutions  of  American  Assem-^ 
blies." 4  Their  professions  of  regard  for  his  Majesty's  inter- 
ests were  loyal  enough,  and  supply  bills  were  freely  pre- 
sented ;  but  the  fact  is,  all  the  Assemblies  looked  upon  this 
as  a  good  opportunity  to  establish  the  liberties  of  the  com-  . 
monwealths  on  a  firmer  basis,  and  hence,  when  voting  sup- 
plies, they  attached  to  their  bills  objectionable  clauses,  sought 
to  wrest  important  concessions  from  their  rulers,  and  gain 

1  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  108. 

2  October  26,  1754. 

3  December  3,  1754. 

4  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  109. 


22        Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [328 

for  themselves  complete  self-government.  Of  course,  these 
objectionable  bills  the  governors  were  obliged  to  veto  in  the 
interest  of  their  proprietors,  or  the  English  government 
itself;  and  Sharpe  complained  that  they  "endeavored  to  cast 
an  odium  on  their  respective  governors  by  laying  them 
under  the  necessity  of  rejecting  such  bills  as  were  presented 
them." 

However,  when  the  alarm  in  the  Ohio  Valley  became  more 
general  and  the  war  assumed  greater  proportions,  New  Eng- 
land came  forward  and  contributed  her  share ;  New  York 
lent  liberal  aid ;  New  Jersey  seemed  to  partake  of  the  infec- 
tion that  possessed  Pennsylvania  and  refused  to  do  anything ; 
"they  seem  to  have  had  nothing  else  in  view  at  their  meet- 
ings," says  Sharpe,  "  but  to  show  the  greatest  disregard  of 
and  contempt  for  the  old  gentleman's  recommendations  " 1 
(referring  to  Gov.  Belcher).  Virginia  had  contributed 
£10,000  and  soon  afterward  £20,000  more,  and  Maryland 
had  contributed  <£6000  besides  the  £500  given  to  the  Six  I 
Nations. 

Maryland  had  constantly  before  her  the  example  of  her 
sister  Proprietary  colony,  Pennsylvania ; 2  Sharpe  was  con- 
tinually expressing  fears  that  the  obstinacy  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Assembly  would  have  an  influence  upon  that  of  Mary- 
land, and  subsequent  events  prove  that  the  latter  was  inclined 
to  be  subservient  to  the  policy  maintained  by  the  former.  * 
The  terror  of  the  inhabitants  on  the  western  frontier  was  very 
great ;  the  Indians  made  many  incursions  upon  Maryland  and 
Virginia  soil,  killing  a  number  of  families  and  destroying  their 
property.    This  occasioned  great  alarm  and  many  of  the  people  * 
in  the  western  part  of  the  province  abandoned  their  homes ; 
such  was  the  state  of  affairs  until  the  arrival  of  Braddock 
raised  their  hopes.     Fort  Cumberland  was  the  only  protec- . 
tion  which  the  western  inhabitants  had,  and  this  was  inade- 
quate ;  small  forces  only  could  be  raised  for  the  defense  of 

1  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  110. 

2  Pennsylvania's  influence  on  Maryland,  see  below,  ch.  III.,  sec.  5. 


329]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         23 

the  frontier.  On  April  14,  1755,  General  Braddock  met  the 
colonial  governors 1  at  Alexandria,  and  a  plan  of  operations  ' 
was  agreed  upon,  Braddock  hoping  to  enlist  the  active  sym- 
pathies of  the  colonies.  In  this,  however,  he  was  to  be 
disappointed.  The  Assembly  of  Maryland  was  again  called 
to  vote  a  supply,  but  Sharpe  was  able  to  do  nothing  with 
them.  The  deaths  of  twenty-six  of  the  "distant  inhabi- 
tants," as  a  result  of  the  encroachments  and  devastations  of 
the  French  and  their  savage  allies,  had  no  effect  upon  the 
Assembly,  for  they  "set  nothing  in  competition  with  the  < 
points  for  which  they  were  contending,"  and,  says  Gov. 
Sharpe,  "the  lives  and  safeties  of  the  people  must  submit 
to  their  caprice  and  humour."  He  was  obliged  to  prorogue 
the  Assembly  until  the  following  year,  for  they  refused  to  do 
anything,  except  upon  their  own  conditions.  Braddock  was 
much  incensed  at  the  cold  reception  which  he  received 
from  the  provincial  Assemblies,  and  was  highly  displeased 
that  no  common  fund  was  provided  for  his  disposal  in  prose- 
cuting the  war.  He  communicated  with  the  governors, 
Sharpe  among  the  number,  stating  his  expectations  and  the 
quota  which  each  should  furnish.  Sharpe  again  proposed  a 
poll  tax,  and  urged,  besides,  that  the  power  to  levy  the  tax 
be  taken  from  the  Legislature  and  put  in  the  hands  of  the 
several  Governors  and  Councils,  in  order  to  "  prevent  useless 
disputes  and  controversies."2  Sharpe,  in  his  anxiety  to  obey, 
instructions,  called  a  meeting  of  his  Assembly  for  June  23, 
1755,  but  with  no  sanguine  feelings ;  he  looked  forward  to  a 
series  of  disputes,  and  thought  that  rather  than  aid  Braddock 
they  would  indulge  in  fault-finding  because  his  troops  had 
carried  off  servants,  carriages  and  horses  belonging  to  the 
inhabitants  over  whose  lands  they  had  marched. 

The  Assembly  offered  X5000,  but  the  measures  proposed  , 
for  raising  the  loan  were  such  as  the  Governor  could  not 
sanction.    Sharpe  was  much  disconcerted  and  distressed  to  see 

1  Governors  of  Va.,  Md.,  Perm.,  N.  Y.,  and  Mass. 

2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  203. 


24        Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Ganada.      [330 

the  condition  of  the  people  on  the  western  frontier  without 
being  able  to  help  them.  He  was  led  to  say,  u  the  Assembly 
will  never  recede  from  the  points  that  his  Lordship's  instruc- 
tions oblige  me  to  insist  on  tho?  half  the  province  should 
be  depopulated." T  He  even  thought,  should  Braddock  have 
41  taken  the  French  Forts  on  the  Ohio,"  he  could  not  hold 
I  them,  for  the  colonies  would  not  support  a  garrison  or  supply 
it  there  "  without  compulsion." 

The  Braddock  expedition  against  Fort  Duquesne,  as  is 
well  known,  ended  in  complete  failure ; 2  suffice  it  to  say  that 
the  failure,  which  was  due  to  the  lack  of  effective  cooperation 
on  the  part  of  the  colonies  coupled  with  Braddock's  own  lack 
,  of  good  judgment,  gave  the  French  an  alarming  advantage, 
for  it  was  followed  by  the  disgraceful  retreat  to  Philadel- 
phia of  Col.  Dunbar,3  who  commanded  the  forces  after  the 
death  of  Braddock,  and  the  abandonment  of  the  field;  this 
left  the  frontier  without  defense,  except  such  as  a  hundred  or 
two  half-starved  provincial  troops  could  give.  All  the  bar- 
riers were  thrown  down,  and  Sharpe  thought  that  2000  regu- 
lar troops  with  as  many  Indians  could  have  marched  to  the 
Chesapeake  almost  without  hindrance;  for  such  was  the 
opinion  he  had  of  the  18,000  Maryland  militia  and  the  Vir- 
ginia troops.  If  the  French  had  taken  full  advantage  of  their 
victory  they  might  have  made  the  invasion  of  Maryland  an 
v  entering  wedge  and  thus  have  cut  the  colonies  in  two,  as  the 
British  afterwards  attempted  to  do  during  the  Revolution. 
However,  this  was  not  done,  for  efforts  were  now  being  made 
to  oppose  the  French  in  the  north ;  and  the  latter,  seeing 
that  the  real  struggle  would  be  in  Canada  and  on  the  lakes, 
withdrew  a  large  portion  of  their  forces  from  the  Ohio.  But 
much  injury  was  committed  and  some  blood  shed  on  the 
defenseless  frontier;  the  western  inhabitants  were  terrified 
and   fled    to  the  more  populous  sections  of  the   province. 

'Sharpe  Cor.  I.,  239. 

2  Orme's  account  of  Braddock's  defeat,  July  9, 1755 ;  Sharpe  Cor.  I.,  252. 

3Dinwiddie  Papers,  II.,  139. 


331]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         25 

Governor  Sharpe  did  what  he  could  to  stop  this  flight  and 
persuade  the  people  to  return  to  their  homes.  Fort  Cumber- 
land was  garrisoned  by  provincial  troops,  and  several  small 
palisade  forts  were  constructed  and  occupied  by  volunteers ; 
these  served  as  places  of  refuge  for  the  panic-stricken  people. 
The  cost  of  these  defenses  was  defrayed  by  private  subscrip-, 
tions  contributed  by  the  Council  and  people. 

,  Down  to  February,  1756,  all  that  was  contributed  toward 
the  campaign  was  £6000  and  a  small  force  of  troops.  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  did  better  than  this,  although  the 
latter,  considering  her  danger,  was  also  slow  to  act.  New 
Jersey  did  as  well.  Virginia,  though  at  first  more  directly 
affected,  contributed  nearly  XI 00,000  and  a  larger  force 
of  men  in  the  same  time.  Even  South  Carolina  was  not 
more  backward  than  Maryland.  This  was  so  despite  the 
fact  that  the  latter  province  was  looked  upon  as  the  center  of 
action ;  her  own  governor,  in  consequence,  being  appointed 
commander-in-chief  temporarily.  — 

Sharpe  was  powerless  to  control  events.  However,  a  small 
,  company  of  sixty  men  under  Captain  Dagworthy  was  raised 
to  accompany  Braddock.  Maryland  had  no  effective  militia 
law,  and  the  Assembly  could  not  be  prevailed  on  to  pass 
one,  so  that  the  difficulty  in  raising  and  disciplining  troops 
was  next  to  that  of  securing  a  vote  of  supplies.  Gov.  Sharpe 
estimated  that  the  three  colonies,  Maryland,  Virginia  and 
Pennsylvania,  alone  could  furnish  80,000  men,  but  it  was, 
with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  a  few  hundred  could  be 
pressed  into  service  and  supported. 

After  Braddock's  failure,  the  conquest  of  Fort  Duquesne 
was  left  to  the  southern  colonies,  and  Sharpe  was  constantly 

i  importuned  to  attack  it,  but  never  secured  support  enough 
to  risk  the  attempt.  Nothing  was  done  against  the  fort 
until  1758.     Gov.  Shirley,  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed 

|  commander-in-chief  of  the  American  forces  to  succeed  Brad- 
dock,  and  this  was  an  indication  that  the  war  against  the 
French   would    be   fought   out  largely   by   New   England. 


26         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [332 

Though  nothing  aggressive  was  done  south  of  New  York, 
nevertheless  Gov.  Sharpe  did  not  cease  his  efforts  to  secure 
a  handsome  appropriation  from  his  Assembly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  defending  the  frontier  and  aiding  Shirley  in  the 
north.  The  exposure  of  the  western  inhabitants  to  French 
and  Indian  raids  occasioned  constant  alarm,  and  the  pressure 
brought  upon  the  Assembly  was  very  great.  Something  had 
to  be  done  at  once.  The  Assembly  yielded;  at  the  next 
session  (February  23,  1756),  a  vote  of  £40,000  was  passed.  ■ 
But  Sharpe  was  still  much  discouraged,  for  he  said  his 
experience  had  taught  him  that  there  was  a  "  wide  difference 
between  voting  a  sum  of  money  and  granting  or  raising  it." 
The  money  was  raised,  however,  and  used  for  defense,  but 
/  we  shall  find  that  in  this  case  it  was  the  Proprietary  and  not 
the  Assembly  that  had  yielded. 


CHAPTER  III. 

"BONES  OF  CONTENTION." 

The  Assembly  vs.  the  Lord  Proprietary. 

A  Marylander  can  feel  little  pride,  nay,  rather  humiliation 
for  the  conduct  of  his  State  during  this  period  of  her  history. 
Upon  whom  rests  the  responsibility  for  this  attitude  of  Mary- 
land at  such  a  time?  Upon  the  Proprietary?  upon  the 
Province?  or  upon  both?  To  find  an  explanation  of  the 
backwardness  of  the  Province,  let  us  examine  the  points  at 
issue  between  the  people  and  the  Proprietary  government. 
They  were  as  follows  : 

1.  The  collection  of  revenues  by  the  Proprietary  which 
were  regarded  as  illegal ;  for  instance,  the  port  or  tonnage  duty 
and  the  tobacco  tax. 

2.  Interference  with  the  colony's  right  to  levy  taxes  and 
control  public  revenues ;  for  example,  the  contest  about  the 
tax  on  ordinary  licenses  and  the  duty  on  imported  convicts. 

3.  The  paper-money  controversy. 

4.  Refusal  of  the  Proprietary  to  share  with  the  Province 
the  burdens  of  the  war  and  waive  his  right  to  the  exemption 
of  his  estates  from  taxation. 

5.  The  example  of  her  sister  colony,  Pennsylvania. 

The  revenues1  enjoyed  by  the  Proprietor  fall  into  two 
classes :  first,  those  which  arose  from  his  ownership  of  the 
soil,  vested  in  him  by  the  charter,  or  so-called  "  territorial 
rights."  They  were  :  1.  Quit  rents,  or  small  fixed  charges 
received  by  the  Proprietary  from  lands  subgranted  by  him. 
2.  Caution  money,  a  revenue  that  arose  from  a  new  system, 
adopted  in  1683,  whereby  any  person  could  sue  out  a  war- 

1  Kilty,  "Landholder's  Assistant,"  pp.  254-268. 


28         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  8trugglefor  Canada.      [334 

rant  for  land  upon  the  payment  of  a  certain  sum,  called 
"  caution  money."  3.  Alienation  fines  (including  fines  upon 
devises),  sums  paid  to  the  Proprietary  for  the  privilege  of 
conveying  land  from  one  person  to  another.  These  were 
private  rights  of  his  lordship. 

Secondly,  those  which  rested  upon  the  bounty  of  the  people 
and  were  granted  to  him  in  his  sovereign  capacity  as  ruler 
of  the  Province,  or  so-called  "rights  of  jurisdiction."  They 
were  :  1.  The  port  or  tonnage  duty.  2.  The  tobacco  duty. 
3.  Fines  and  forfeitures.  4.  Duty  on  ordinary  licenses; 
hawkers'  and  peddlers'  licenses  and  a  few  others  of  no  special 
importance.  These  were  the  public  revenues  of  the  Pro- 
prietor. While  both  these  classes  of  revenue  were  sanctioned 
by  the  charter,  there  was  still  a  wide  distinction  between  the 
two.  When,  in  1689,  the  Proprietary  government  lost  its 
authority,  the  Proprietor  also  lost,  for  the  time,  most  of  his 
public  revenues  but  he  retained  his  private  revenues  as 
landlord  of  the  soil. 


1. — Collection  by  the  Lord  Proprietary  of  Taxes 
that  were  regarded  as  unconstitutional. 

The  public  revenues  of  the  Proprietor  were  constant 
"  bones  of  contention  "  between  the  Assembly  and  Lord  Balti- 
more ;  it  was  these  that  caused  most  of  the  disputes  that 
arrested  the  cooperation  of  Maryland  in  the  French  and 
Indian  War.  Although  the  port  or  tonnage  duty  originated 
in  1646,  it  was  first  permanently  levied  by  the  Act  of  1661 
entitled  "An  Act  for  Porte  dutyes  and  Masters  of  Ships."1 
It  was  enacted  that  .  ..."  all  vessels  not  belonging  to  the 
province,  having  a  deck  flush  fore  and  aft,  coming  in  and 
trading  within  the  Province  should  pay  for  Port  Duties  or 
Anchorage  half  a  pound  of  powder  and  three  pounds  of  shot 
or  so  much  in  value  for  every  ton  of  burden  to  the  Lord 
Proprietor  and  his  heirs."  .  .  .  But  it  was  afterward  com- 

1  Assembly  Proceedings,  1661,  p.  418. 


335]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         29 

muted  to  fourteen  pence  per  ton,  and  this  revenue  was  enjoyed 
by  the  Proprietor  unmolested  until  1692.  At  this  time, 
Maryland  being  under  Royal  government,  the  port  duty  was 
claimed  by  the  Assembly  as  a  public  revenue.  The  Assem- 
bly urged  the  ingenious  but  false  argument  that  the  revenue 
was  a  fort  duty  and  not  a  port  duty ;  that  though  the  jour- 
nals of  the  Assembly  and  the  original  act  itself  had  been 
lost  or  made  away  with,  yet  after  a  thorough  examination 
into  the  reasons  for  making  the  law,  they  had  found  it  "  was 
for  building  of  Forts  and  finding  of  powder  and  shott  for  the 
Country's  use  ....  and  the  duty  was  always  called  by  the 
inhabitants  ( Fort  Duetys  and  not  Port  Duetyes.' "  The  reve- 
nue amounted  then  to  eight  hundred  pounds  sterling  annually, 
and  it  seemed  to  distress  the  Assembly  greatly  that  the  King 
should  be  burdened  with  the  building  of  forts  for  the  Province 
while  the  Lord  Proprietor  was  allowed  to  enjoy  this  large 
revenue. 

The  attempt  to  show  that  this  revenue  was  a  fort  duty  and 
not  a  port  duty,  if  successful,  would  have  classed  it  among 
other  revenues  granted  for  defense  which  were  repealed  by 
the  general  repealing  act  of  1704.  The  Proprietor's  agents 
collected  this  revenue  in  peace  until  1739,  when  the  old  sores 
broke  out  afresh  and  became  more  virulent  than  ever.  A 
systematic  attack  upon  the  Proprietary  revenues  was  then 
begun  and  continued  down  to  the  Revolution.  The  port  duty 
proved  a  constant  grievance,  for  the  Assembly  pronounced  it 
contrary  to  the  reason  and  institution  of  the  duty  in  the  act 
of  1661,  and  took  the  ground  "that  all  taxes  not  imposed 
or  at  least  sanctioned  by  themselves  were  illegal."  The 
Assembly  held  that  the  duty  had  been  repealed  by  the  general 
repealing  act  of  1704.  But  legally  the  Assembly's  case  was 
a  weak  one ;  the  Crown  did  not  assent  to  a  repeal  of  the  port 
duty  in  1704.  Moreover,  the  Assembly  really  recognized 
the  legality  of  the  port  duty,  for  when,  in  1733,  provision 
was  made  for  a  redemption  fund  in  the  Paper  Currency  Act, 
the  appropriation  of  this  revenue  for  such  a  purpose  was 
specially  exempted. 


30         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [336 

Though  a  duty  on  exported  tobacco  was  levied  in  Maryland 
as  early  as  1638,  it  was  the  act  of  1671  that  occasioned  so  much 
dispute  subsequently.  It  was  entitled  an  "Act  for  the  Rayseing 
and  Provideing  a  Support  for  his  Lordship  .  .  .  dureing  his 
natureall  life  .  .  .  and  towards  the  defraying  the  Public 
Charges  of  Government."1  By  this  act  the  sum  of  two 
shillings  sterling  was  imposed  as  a  duty  upon  every  hogs- 
head of  tobacco  which  should  be  shipped  "  in  any  Ship  or 
vessell "  out  of  the  province,  but  it  was  specially  provided 
that  one-half  of  the  revenue  thereby  raised  should  be  used 
for  the  constant  maintenance  of  a  magazine  with  arms  and 
ammunition  for  the  defense  of  the  province  and  other  public 
charges.  A  concluding  clause  directed  that  this  act  should 
continue  during  the  natural  life  of  Cecilius,  then  Lord 
Baltimore,  and  "  for  one  Cropp  more  next  after  his  decease 
and  noe  longer. "  It  was  also  agreed  that  the  Proprietor 
should  receive  his  rents  and  fines  for  the  alienation  of  lands 
in  good  tobacco,  when  tendered,  at  the  rate  of  two  pence  per 
pound.  However,  by  subsequent  acts,  the  act  of  1671  was 
continued  during  the  lives  of  his  successors,  Charles  Calvert 
and  Benedict  Leonard  Calvert.  When  the  government  was 
seized  by  the  Crown  in  1691,  the  tobacco  tax  of  two  shillings 
was  collected  and  lodged  in  the  public  treasury,  and  when 
the  first  royal  governor,  Copley,  entered  upon  his  office  (1692), 
the  Assembly  settled  upon  him  one  shilling,  or  one-half  the 
duty  which  had  been  appropriated  by  former  acts  for  the 
support  and  defense  of  the  province.  Lord  Baltimore  had 
always  claimed  the  other  half,  as  of  the  nature  of  a  private 
contract  between  himself  and  his  tenants,  in  consideration 
for  the  loss  he  sustained  by  receiving  his  quit-rents  in  tobacco 
at  the  rate  of  two  pence  per  pound.  Receiving  no  benefit 
therefrom,  his  agent,  Henry  Darnall,  petitioned  the  Assembly 
for  the  privilege  of  collecting  this  and  other  of  his  lordship's 
revenues.  The  Assembly  replied  evasively,  but  the  King 
approved  his  claim  and   he  continued  to  enjoy  the  twelve 

'Assembly  Proceedings,  Vol.  II.  (1666-1676),  pp.  284-286. 


337]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada,         31 

pence  tariff.  On  Sept.  19,  1715,  it  was  raised  to  eighteen 
pence  per  hogshead,  and  in  1716  this  revenue  was  further 
increased^  the  Assembly  purchasing  the  quit-rents  and  fines 
outright  for  a  duty  of  two  shillings  per  hogshead  and  an 
additional  fifteen  pence,  twelve  pence  being  for  the  support 
of  the  Governor,  and  three  pence  for  arms  and  ammunition. 
These  provisions  were  continued  by  an  act  of  1717,  and  were 
allowed  to  expire  in  1733.  Lord  Baltimore  thereupon,  under 
color  of  the  act  of  1704,  resumed  the  collection  of  his  quit- 
rents  and  twelve  pence  per  hogshead  for  the  support  of  the 
government,  which  in  the  interval  seems  not  to  have  been 
collected.  It  was  continued  without  opposition  until  1739, 
when  trouble  began,  and  the  Assembly  of  1739  spent  a 
large  portion  of  its  session  in  discussing  the  legality  of  the 
tobacco  tax.  "During  that  period,  1733-1739,  the  Act  of 
1704  was  looked  on  as  a  Law  in  Force  and  Being,"  says 
Governor  Ogle,  "  until  some  Gentlemen  of  new  Light  (for 
I  find  we  have  new  Light  in  Politicks  as  well  as  in  Reli- 
gion) lately  undertook  to  undeceive  us  in  this  particular." 
The  action  of  the  Proprietor  in  collecting  this  twelve  pence 
was  denounced  as  illegal  and  unwarranted,  and  the  Assembly 
took  the  untenable  ground  "that  Acts  passed  during  the 
period  of  Royal  Government  were  not  meant  to  extend  to  his 
Lordship,  that  the  revenue  had  not  been  properly  applied  by 
the  Proprietary,  that  the  Law  of  1704  was  a  '  mixed  con- 
sideration/ dependent  upon  the  proviso  that  Lord  Baltimore 
receive  his  quit-rents  and  fines  in  tobacco."  .  .  .  The  Lower 
House  adopts  this  report  of  its  Committee  on  Grievances, 
insisting  that  they,  as  British  subjects,  "  wish  to  maintain  to 
themselves  and  their  constituents  the  liberty  ...  of  not 
being  liable  to  the  payment  of  any  money,  Tax,  Impost  or 
Duty,  except  such  as  are  raised  ...  by  themselves."  To  give 
evidence  of  their  good  faith,  the  Assembly  passed  a  bill  giving 
twelve  pence  per  hogshead  to  the  Governor  for  his  support. 
This  was  an  equivalent  of  the  twelve  pence  of  the  act  of  1704, 
the  collection  of  which  by  the  Proprietary  officers  was  declared 


32         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [338 

illegal.  The  Upper  House  rejected  the  bill.  Gov.  Ogle 
tried  to  persuade  the  Assembly  that  they  were  in  error,  but 
they  were  not  to  be  persuaded.  The  Lower  House  was  not 
satisfied  to  let  the  matter  rest  here,  and  passed  a  bill  for  the 
appointment  of  an  agent  in  London  to  lay  their  grievances 
before  Lord  Baltimore,  and  if  he  should  fail  to  adjust  them, 
to  bring  them  before  the  King  in  Council.  As  the  Lower 
House  reserved  to  itself  exclusive  control  of  the  agents  both 
as  to  appointment  and  payment,  the  Upper  House  rejected 
the  measure  with  the  comment, — "  A  prettier  Scheme  for 
Power  and  Profit,  in  our  little  World  of  Politicks,  can  hardly 
be  thought  of."  The  Lower  House  argues  ominously  :  "  The 
people  of  Maryland  think  the  Proprietary  takes  Money  from 
them  unlawfully,  the  Proprietary  says  he  has  a  right  to  .  .  . 
his  Majesty  must  determine  and  we  must  have  a  suitable 
agent  in  London  to  act  for  the  people.  .  .  .  The  people  of 
Maryland  have  spirit  enough  and  we  hope  will  find  means 
without  this  Bill  to  do  themselves  Justice." 

After  opening  this  broadside  upon  the  Proprietary,  Mary- 
land kept  up  the  fight  without  intermission  until  she  became 
an  independent  State.  The  entire  session  of  the  Assembly 
of  1739  was  given  up  to  constant  quarrels  and  bickerings 
between  the  representatives  of  the  people  and  the  partisans 
of  the  Proprietor,  the  Governor  assuming  the  role  of  peace- 
maker. As  a  result,  we  find  no  new  laws  on  the  statute-books 
in  1739  and  1740. 

The  Lower  House  was  not  to  be  frustrated  in  its  efforts  to 
secure  an  agent  in  London,  and  their  persistence  was  rewarded 
with  success.  In  1740  a  colonial  agent  was  retained,  and  two 
addresses  were  prepared  stating  their  grievances,  one  to  the 
Proprietor,  the  other  to  the  King,  the  latter  to  be  presented 
only  in  case  the  former  failed  of  its  object.  The  address  to 
the  Proprietor  was  presented  and  its  response  was  submitted 
to  the  Assembly  in  1744.  It  was  conciliatory  in  tone  and  con- 
tained thanks  for  the  evidences  of  good  will  manifested  by  the 
colonists  toward  his  Majesty's  government,  but  beyond  mere 


339]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         33 

empty  promises  and  polite  expressions  it  availed  nothing 
toward  the  settling  of  the  controversy.  These  differences 
with  the  Proprietary  gave  rise  to  a  political  faction  which 
continued  through  the  remaining  days  of  the  colonial  period. 
At  regular  intervals  down  to  1771  resolutions  were  passed 
directed  against  the  tonnage  and  tobacco  duties,  and  the 
antagonism  of  this  faction  increased  as  the  outbreak  of  war 
occasioned  new  demands  for  revenue.  It  was  held  that  the 
law  of  1704  was  a  perpetual  one;  it  was  denied  that  laws 
made  for  his  Majesty's  government  would  not  hold  under 
Proprietary  government,  for  the  province  continued  to  be 
"  the  Kings  Government."  The  "  mixed  consideration  "  was 
also  denied  to  be  a  necessary  part  of  the  act,  and  the 
Assembly  was  scored  because  it  had  made  no  objection  to  the 
collection  of  the  tax  until  1739.  "The  Right  of  the  Act  of 
1704,"  says  Calvert,  "  is  so  undeniable  Apparent  with  the 
Crown  and  with  Lord  Baltimore  as  his  Majesty's  Hereditary 
Governor  of  Maryland,  Its  Quality  is  unto  a  Diamond  not  to 
be  altered  but  by  its  own  Power."  .  .  .  But  Calvert  struck 
at  the  seat  of  the  dispute  when  he  hinted  that  "  the  present 
legislators  do  not  possess  the  same  kindly  spirit  toward  the 
administration  that  their  ancestors  did."  In  justice  to  the 
Proprietary  be  it  said  there  is  no  evidence  among  the  laws 
of  Maryland  of  a  repeal  of  the  act  of  1704.  The  popular 
branch  of  the  Assembly  were  clearly  at  fault  in  the  view  they 
took.  It  was  the  attempt  of  a  political  faction  in  the  province 
to  wrest  from  Lord  Baltimore  privileges  that  were  properly 
his.  There  had  grown  up  a  strong  party  opposed  to  the 
government  in  everything,  and  if  there  had  been  no  check 
upon  their  designs,  or  had  the  Lord  Proprietary  not  been  as 
liberal  as  he  was,  he  might  have  been  stripped  of  all  his 
political  rights  ere  this.  As  it  was,  Baltimore  may  have 
made  a  mistake  in  failing  to  make  concessions  which  would 
have  led  to  an  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  between  him  and 
the  people.  The  Assembly  was  unfortunate  in  having  to 
deal  at  this  time  with  a  Proprietor  who,  unlike  his  predeces- 


34         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [340 

sors,  cared  little  for  his  province  and  was  of  no  benefit  to  it 
at  all.  Frederick  was  satisfied  with  Sharpe's  administration 
so  long  as  he  kept  his  income  intact,  but  was  unwilling  to 
tolerate  any  petitions  from  the  Assembly.  The  collection  of 
the  tobacco  and  tonnage  duties  remained  ever  afterward  a 
standing  complaint,  and  was  often  an  excuse  for  a  dispute  or 
a  delay  in  legislation  throughout  Sharpe's  entire  term. 
Frequent  attempts  were  made  to  mortgage  this  revenue  when 
appropriating  a  supply,  but  in  every  case  the  bill  was  vetoed 
by  the  Upper  House. 

In  1756  another  effort  was  made  to  secure  an  agent  in 
London  to  bring  their  troubles  before  the  King  in  Council, 
and  a  paper  was  circulated  among  the  people  to  raise  sub- 
scriptions for  the  purpose.  They  had  come  to  the  belief  that 
the  duties  were  illegal  and  were  very  much  wrought  up. 
Sharpe  appreciated  the  situation ;  he  confessed  he  thought 
the  people  unreasonable  in  their  views,  but  urged  Baltimore 
to  allow  the  dispute  to  be  brought  before  the  Privy  Council 
or  be  submitted  for  an  opinion  to  the  Attorney-General. 
Sharpe  felt  that  if  Frederick  would  but  submit  to  a  hearing 
he  would  be  sustained,  the  people  would  be  satisfied  with  the 
result  and  further  controversy  prevented.  But  Sharpe's 
advice  was  not  heeded,  and  Lord  Baltimore  peremptorily 
forbade  him  from  hearing  any  proposal  by  the  Assembly 
concerning  the  appointment  of  an  agent.  Sure  enough,  as 
Sharpe  had  said,  Frederick's  resistance  confirmed  many 
people  in  the  opinion  that  the  money  was  collected  without 
the  sanction  of  the  law.  However,  payment  was  not  resisted 
and  the  taxes  were  collected  as  long  as  Proprietary  rule 
lasted,  subject,  though,  to  periodic  condemnation. 

According  to  the  Governor's  estimate  in  1756,  the  port 
duty  yielded  then  a  revenue  of  £800  or  £900  annually ;  the 
tobacco  duty,  £1400,  most  of  which  was  the  annual  salary  of 
the  Lieutenant-Governor,  the  rest  being  paid  to  the  Proprietor. 


341]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         35 

2. — Interference  with  the  Colony's  Right  to  Levy 

Taxes. 

Ordinary  Licenses. — The  ordinary  licenses  were  revenues 
that  arose  from  annual  fees  exacted'  from  the  innkeepers  of 
the  province.  They  were  first  levied  in  "An  Acte  Pegu- 
lateing  Ordinaryes  and  Limitting  the  number  of  them  within 
this  Province,"  passed  by  the  Assembly  in  1678.  By  the 
terms  of  this  act  a  license  fee  of  2000  pounds  of  tobacco  was 
imposed  upon  every  ordinary  keeper  who  kept  an  inn  within 
two  miles  of  the  "City  of  St.  Maryes,"  or  1200  pounds  for  a 
similar  privilege  in  any  county.1  This  was  an  annual  fee  and 
yielded  a  goodly  revenue  to  Lord  Baltimore,  to  whom  it  was 
granted.2  It  appears  that  the  Lord  Proprietor's  secretary 
received  the  ordinary  license  fees  from  1678  until  1692. 
They  were  given  him  by  his  lordship  in  lieu  of  certain  clear- 
ance fees  which  had  become  more  lucrative  and  therefore 
made  the  exchange  desirable.  This  was  public  revenue,  and 
in  that  eventful  year,  1692,  the  Assembly,  upon  the  plea  that 
the  Secretary  only  enjoyed  it  through  his  lordship's  bounty, 
and  that  his  lord  was  no  longer  in  authority,  transferred  the 
ordinary  license  fund  to  the  royal  governor.  Upon  this, 
the  Secretary  appealed  to  the  King  and  complained  of  the 
confiscation,  which  caused  him  a  yearly  loss  of  X150.3  In 
consequence,  the  King  in  Council  disallowed  this  act  of 
the  Assembly,  and  the  license  fees  were  restored  to  the  Sec- 
retary. Thus  the  Proprietor  gained  another  point  which  was 
won  through  the  aid  of  the  Crown.  Ordinary  licenses  were 
continued  by  various  acts  till  1729.4  In  1735,5  another  "act 
for  regulating  Innholders  and  Ordinary  keepers  "  was  passed, 

1  The  penalty  for  an  attempt  to  keep  without  a  license  was  a  forfeiture 
of  10,000  pounds  of  tobacco. 

2  Or  rather  was  taken  by  him,  as  his  by  prerogative.     Sharpe  Corre- 
spondence, I.,  235. 

3  Council  Proceedings  (Md.  Archives),  1692,  pp.  386,  438,  451,  456. 

4  Bacon's  Laws  of  Maryland,  1717,  ch.  1  ;  1726,  ch.  10. 

5  Bacon's  Laws  of  Maryland,  1735,  ch.  8. 


36         Maryland1 8  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [342 

which  expired  in  1740.  The  Assembly  of  1739  had  refused 
to  renew  this  revenue  to  the  Proprietor,  and  in  1740  the 
ordinary  licenses  were  appropriated  by  law,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Proprietor,  to  defray  the  expense  of  raising  men  for  the 
Carthagena  expedition,  and  in  1746  to  help  an  intended  expe- 
dition against  Canada.  In  that  way  the  ordinary  license 
fees  were  mortgaged  until  1754. 

By  an  act  of  1735,  hawkers,  peddlers  and  petty  chapmen 
were  required  to  take  out  a  license  annually.  This  also 
yielded  a  fee  of  £5  for  each  license,  which  was  given  to  the 
Proprietor  for  the  support  of  the  government.  The  act 
expired  in  1740. 

Maryland,  until  1753,  had  never  been  directly  threatened 
by  a  French  invasion.  Although  war  had  been  carried  on 
with  the  French  for  half  a  century,  the  Canada  border  was 
always  the  scene  of  action.  The  people  of  Maryland  had 
consequently  taken  no  part  in  this  warfare,  save  by  an  occa- 
sional contribution.  Even  the  purse  of  £500  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Six  Nations  at  the  Albany  Congress  was  not 
secured  from  the  Assembly  without  considerable  wrangling 
between  the  two  houses,  for  the  Lower  Branch  wished  to 
replace  the  money  taken  out  of  the  Loan  Office  by  "  License 
Money  and  Fines  and  Forfeitures "  arising  from  other 
sources.  The  Upper  House  resisted  this  invasion  of  Lord 
Baltimore's  privileges.  The  dispute  was  finally  settled  by  a 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Delegates  "  to  take  .£500  current 
money  out  of  the  Treasurer's  hand  "  to  purchase  presents  for 
the  Indians.  Increased  pressure  and  persuasion  soon 
brought  the  Assembly  to  a  sense  of  their  duty,  and  in  May, 
1754,  an  act  was  passed  by  the  Lower  House  to  appropriate 
.£3000  in  aid  of  Virginia,  but  it  never  became  law ;  for 
among  the  ways  and  means  reported  by  the  committee  for 
raising  the  fund,  an  additional  tax  of  £1  was  placed  on  ordi- 
nary licenses,  and  a  £3  annual  license  on  hawkers  and  ped- 
dlers ;  likewise  additional  taxes  upon  indented  servants  and 
imported  negroes.     No  objection  was  made  to  the  latter,  but 


343]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         37 

the  license  fees  killed  the  bill.  A  conference  of  the  two 
houses  led  to  an  adjustment  of  the  dispute,  and  the 
Assembly  was  prorogued  until  July.  Sharpe,  on  becoming 
Lieutenant-Governor  of  the  Province,  had  received  private 
instructions  from  Lord  Baltimore  to  order  the  Proprietary 
agent  to  receive  the  revenue  arising  from  ordinary  licenses, 
but  he  answered  that  it  was  impossible,  for  the  license 
fees  were  already  taxed  to  pay  off  a  loan  made  in  1746 
and  this  had  not  been  fully  redeemed.  Frederick  wished  to 
see  no  retrenchment  of  the  Proprietary  revenue,  while 
the  Assembly  was  determined  he  should  share  their  bur- 
dens. The  Proprietor  had  not  received  the  license  fees 
since  1739,  and  his  only  title  to  them  previous  to  that 
time  was  the  will  of  the  Assembly.  It  was  the  prompt- 
ing of  an  indifferent  and  selfish  spirit  that  now  led  him 
to  interfere  and  prevent  the  province  from  appropriating 
this  revenue  for  the  public  good.  Ordinary  licenses  were 
not  a  permanent  fund  voted  to  the  use  of  the  Proprietor  and 
his  heirs.  The  purpose  of  the  Assembly  in  imposing  these 
licenses  was  the  "  better  regulating  of  ordinary-keepers  and 
limiting  their  number  within  the  province."  And  to  that  end 
a  tax  had  been  placed  which  served  incidentally  as  a  source 
of  revenue.  It  was  granted  to  Lord  Baltimore  only,  however, 
for  temporary  periods ;  these  grants  were  subject  to  renewal, 
and  were  accepted  as  gifts  by  the  Proprietor  till  1739, 
when  the  Assembly  refused  to  continue  them  longer.  Now 
that  the  Province  needed  public  money,  it  proposed  to  claim 
its  own  and  avoid  the  burden  of  an  increase  of  taxation. 
Frederick's  claim  to  this  fund  rested  upon  precedent  alone, 
and  even  had  it  been  stronger,  he  should  have  waived  it  in 
this  time  of  public  danger.  His  selfishness  aggravated  the 
tardiness  of  Maryland  in  responding  to  the  appeals  of  her 
sister,  Virginia,  and  the  instructions  of  the  English  govern- 
ment. Sharpe,  Frederick's  own  appointee,  held  these  views, 
though  he  never  expressed  himself  in  language  quite  so 
strong.     The  provincial  Assembly  had  long  before  entered 


38         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [344 

into  a  contest  with  its  Proprietary  for  supremacy,  and  now  that 
an  opportunity  offered,  with  the  Proprietary  government  at  its 
weakest  stage,  they  meant  to  settle  it  in  their  own  favor. 
Thus  matters  stood ;  and  the  government  was  practically  at 
a  standstill  when  the  people  of  Maryland  received  the  news 
of  Washington's  surrender  at  Fort  Necessity.  The  Assembly 
at  this  critical  moment  at  once  surprised  and  exasperated 
Didwiddie  and  the  ministry ;  Sharpe  it  irritated,  but  did  not 
surprise,  for  he  knew  his  men.  Upon  the  defeat  of  Wash- 
ington, Sharpe  called  a  special  session  for  the  consideration 
of  a  supply.  He  addressed  the  Assembly  in  these  words :  "  In 
This  Emergency  the  Hopes  and  Expectations  of  our  Neigh- 
bors whom  in  Duty,  Honour  and  Interest  we  are  Engaged  to 
Support  and  Defend  are  fixed  upon  us  for  assistance;  and 
What  must  the  World  think  of  our  Conduct  or  What  Calami- 
ties may  We  not  expect,  if  from  an  unseasonable  parsimony 
We  boldly  look  on  while  they  are  Cut  to  Pieces.  The 
Boundless  Ambition  of  the  Common  Enemy  and  Cruel  Rage 
of  their  Savage  allies  now  upon  our  Borders  flushed  with 
victory  indespensably  require  a  Vigorous  and  immediate 
Exertion  of  all  Powers  to  check  their  Progress."  *  A  fund 
for  defense  was  recommended,  and  the  Assembly  responded 
promptly  to  the  earnest  appeals  of  their  Governor,  by  acting 
upon  his  suggestion  without  delay.  A  vote  of  .£6000  current 
money  was  passed  in  aid  of  Virginia,  and  assented  to  by 
Governor  Sharpe.  Dinwiddie  writes  his  congratulations  to 
Sharpe,  saying :  "  Washington's  defeat  has  caused  more  than  a 
victory,  it  has  roused  the  spirits  of  our  neighboring  colonies."2 
But  notice  that  the  ways  and  means 3  provided  for  raising 
this  fund  include  ordinary  licenses  and  a  tax  of  one  pound 
sterling  on  every  imported  convict.4  At  the  time  this  supply 
was  passed  Sharpe  had  instructions  not  to  assent  to  any  bill 

1  Assembly  Proceedings,  1754,  July  17. 
2 Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  p.  76. 

3  Assembly  Proceedings,  1754,  July  25  ;  Bacon's  Laws,  1754,  ch.  9. 

4  See  below,  p.  40. 


345]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         39 

appropriating  the  ordinary  licenses.  But  necessity  and  the 
knowledge  that  a  supply  could  not  be  secured  any  other  way 
induced  the  Governor  and  his  Council  to  yield  to  the  Lower 
House.  Sharpe  begged  the  indulgence  of  his  lordship  and 
pleaded  urgency  as  his  excuse.  Baltimore,  on  the  contrary, 
far  from  being  gratified  at  the  behavior  of  his  province,  was 
displeased  at  the  public  appropriation  of  the  license  fees ; 
and  although  he  had  nothing  to  lose,  for  he  had  never  received 
this  revenue  as  long  as  he  had  been  Lord  Baltimore,  never- 
theless Frederick  did  not  become  reconciled  to  the  loss  of 
this  prospective  revenue  until  September  9,  1755.  The 
Assembly  had  gained  its  point  and  now  became  more  deter- 
mined than  ever.  In  the  meantime,  Sharpe  was  making  the 
best  use  of  his  resources.  He  raised  a  company  of  one  hun- 
dred men  and  sent  them  to  Wills  Creek  to  engage  with  other 
colonial  troops  in  the  erection  of  Fort  Cumberland.  This 
fort  was  erected  to  serve  as  an  outpost  for  the  frontier  de- 
fense and  as  a  base  of  supplies  for  expeditions  against  Fort 
Duquesne.  Sharpe,  contemplating  an  attack  upon  the  French 
stronghold,  sought  again  the  assistance  of  his  Assembly,  and 
in  December,  1754,  the  Lower  House  passed  a  supply  of 
£7000  to  be  provided  by  an  emission  of  "  notes  of  credit." 
But  the  provisions  for  sinking  the  same  contained  the  old 
clauses  concerning  ordinary  licenses  and  imported  convicts, 
which  Sharpe,  in  obedience  to  his  instructions,  was  bound  to 
reject.  Again,  in  February,  1755,  the  Lower  House  voted 
a  supply  "for  his  Majesty's  service,"  this  time  <£10,000,  with 
the  foreknowledge,  no  doubt,  that  the  bill  would  not  become 
a  law.  It  contained  the  same  provisions  that  were  before 
objected  to  by  the  Proprietary  and  was  rejected.  But  the 
Lower  House  responded  by  resolving  that  "  they  would  not 
grant  a  Shilling  by  any  other  means  ";  consequently  Sharpens 
project  could  not  be  carried  out.  These  controversies  between 
the  representatives  of  the  people  and  the  agents  of  the  Pro- 
prietor caused  the  defeat  of  effective  legislation.  Many  of 
the  Councillors  and  the  Governor  were  wavering  in  their 


40         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [346 

belief  that  Lord  Baltimore's  claim  to  the  ordinary  licenses 
was  a  just  one,  but  the  instructions  of  his  Lordship  compelled 
them  to  act  as  they  did.  At  the  same  time  the  Lower  House 
was  determined  not  to  retreat  from  ground  they  had  gained, 
and  continued  to  dictate  the  uses  to  which  the  license  fund 
should  be  put ;  therefore  nothing  could  be  accomplished 
except  by  yielding  to  the  House  of  Delegates.  This  was  a 
bitter  pill  for  his  Lordship,  but  he  had  to  take  it  at  last. 

The  question  of  foreign  immigration  has  always  been  an 
important  one  in  America.  In  the  very  infancy  of  Maryland 
the  danger  of  unrestricted  immigration  was  perceived,  and 
laws  were  passed  to  regulate  it  and  keep  out  undesirable 
immigrants,  among  whom  were  reckoned  negroes,  Irish 
papists,  and  convicts.  Considerable  revenue  was  raised 
from  the  first  two  classes.  By  an  early .  law  all  imported 
negroes  were  bound  to  service  and  made  slaves  for  life.1  In 
1695  an  imposition  of  ten  shillings  per  poll,  afterwards  in- 
creased to  forty,  was  placed  on  all  negroes  imported,  while 
the  same  law  placed  a  tax  of  only  two  shillings  sixpence  on 
white  servants.2  In  1704  a  poll  of  twenty  shillings,  after- 
wards doubled,  was  imposed  on  the  importation  of  Irish 
servants,  "  to  prevent  too  many  Irish  papists  being  imported  " 
into  the  province.  These  duties  were  continued  throughout 
the  history  of  the  colony,  except  the  tax  on  Protestant  ser- 
vants, which  was  repealed  in  1732.  The  Assembly  had  no 
complaint  to  make  of  these  immigrants ;  but  with  the  impor- 
tation of  convicts  it  was  different,  for  other  questions  were 
involved,  and  of  the  three  classes,  "imported  convicts"  were 
the  most  obnoxious.  It  appears  that  the  importation  of  con- 
victs began  at  an  early  date.  The  attention  of  the  Assembly 
being  soon  called  to  this  matter,  steps  were  immediately 
taken  to  prevent  the  influx  of  these  undesirable  people.  An 
act  for  that  purpose  was  passed  by  the  Assembly  in  1676: 
"  Whereas  it  had  come  to  their  knowledge  that  several  1  no- 

^ssem.  Proceedings,  III.,  203. 
2 Called  "  indented  servants." 


347]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         41 

torious  felons  and  malefactors,  taken  from  the  'Comon 
Jayles/  had  been  imported  and  sold  in  this  province  as  ser- 
vants ...  it  was  provided  that  a  law  be  enacted  to  prevent 
their  landing  .  .  .  under  a  forfeit  of  2000  pounds  of 
tobacco  by  the  Ship  Master  in  each  case." 1  It  had  been  the 
custom  to  transport  criminals  convicted  of  theft,  perjury  or 
forgery,  which  were  then  capital  offenses,  to  the  colonies,  to 
be  there  sold  into  servitude  for  seven  or  fourteen  years,  ac- 
cording to  the  enormity  of  their  crimes.  Their  importation 
to  Virginia  was  first  begun  by  James  I.,  but  was  soon  ex- 
tended to  all  the  colonies  alike.  Virginia  passed  laws  to  fix 
a  small  liability  upon  their  masters  for  good  behavior,  while 
Maryland  prohibited  their  importation  outright.  The  act 
of  1676  was  continued  by  several  reviving  acts,  and  in  1692 
a  new  law  was  passed,  its  object  being  to  prevent  the  land- 
ing of  convicts.  However,  their  importation  to  America 
increased  under  George  I.,  when  the  number  of  offenses  for 
which  a  criminal  was  transportable  was  largely  extended. 
In  the  meantime  the  law  of  1692  had  expired,  and  even  dur- 
ing the  continuance  of  the  prohibitive  acts  no  doubt  many 
convicts  were  smuggled  in.  In  1723  the  Maryland  Assem- 
bly took  the  matter  up  again  and  passed  an  "  act  to  prevent 
the  evils  arising  from  the  importation  of  convicts  and  the 
better  discovery  of  such  when  imported."  Though  passed 
by  both  branches  of  the  Legislature,  it  was  vetoed  by  Lord 
Baltimore.  The  reason  alleged  for  shipping  the  convicts  to 
the  colonies  was  "  the  great  want  of  servants  "  there.  Hence 
these  criminals,  whose  services  to  England  were  impaired 
or  unnecessary,  were  sent  abroad  that  they  "  might  be  the 
means  of  improving  his  majesties  plantations  by  their  labor 
and  industry."  Many  of  the  colonies  were  incensed  at  this ; 
Pennsylvania  put  a  poll-tax  on  them  as  early  as  1729,  and 
New  York  raised  a  great  hue  and  cry  against  their  importa- 
tion.2    "We  want  people,   'tis  true,"  they  said,  "but  not 

^ssem.  Proceedings,  II.  (1666-1676),  p.  540  :     "An  Act  against  the 
Importation  of  Convicted  Persons  into  this  Province." 
2 Pitkin,  United  States,  I.,  134,  135. 


42        Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [348 

villains,  ready  at  any  time,  encouraged  by  impunity,  and 
habituated,  upon  the  slightest  occasion,  to  cut  a  man's  throat 
for  a  small  part  of  his  proper ty."  Similar  utterances  ap- 
peared in  the  Maryland  Gazette,1  but  Maryland  had  no 
redress  while  thus  handicapped  by  her  Proprietor.  It  is 
estimated  that  from  three  to  four  hundred  felons  found  their 
way  into  her  territory  annually.2  When  the  French  and 
Indian  War  brought  its  demand  for  revenue,  the  Assembly 
hit  upon  Pennsylvania's  plan  and  placed  a  poll-tax  or  duty 
of  £1  on  every  convict  imported.  This  duty  was  imposed 
primarily  for  revenue  purposes,  but  moral  considerations 
and  the  example  of  Pennsylvania  were  also  causes  of  its 
imposition.  Here  came  the  rub :  the  importation  of  felons 
was  authorized  by  special  acts  of  Parliament ;  several  ship- 
masters were  contracted  with  to  transport  them,  and  England 
gladly  paid  a  bounty  to  get  rid  of  this  dangerous  class  of 
citizens ;  aside  from  this,  the  contractors  derived  a  large 
profit  from  the  sale  of  the  convicts  and  enjoyed  a  profitable 
monopoly.3  Naturally  they  objected  to  having  it  curtailed, 
and  consequently  when  a  duty  was  imposed  on  convicts  by  the 
Act  of  1754  a  great  cry  arose  from  the  contractors  against  it ; 
they  threatened  to  memorialize  Parliament.  The  duty  was 
objected  to  by  the  partisans  of  the  Proprietor,  who  urged 
that  it  clashed  with  the  authority  of  Parliament  and  would 
draw  a  censure  from  Great  Britain.  Lord  Mansfield,  then 
Attorney-General,  was  appealed  to;  he  declared  "the  colony 
had  no  power  to  make  such  a  law,  because  it  was  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  Parliament;  furthermore, 
granting  that  it  were  proper,  colonial  legislatures  might  with 
equal  propriety  lay  a  tariff  upon  or  even  prohibit  the  impor- 
tation of  all  English  goods."  He  threatened  that  unless 
Lord  Baltimore  dissented  to  the  Maryland  act  he  would 

Maryland  Gazette,  July  30  and  August  20, 1767. 

2  Pitkin,  United  States,  I.,  133. 

3  The  convicts  were  sold  at  prices  ranging  from  eight  to  twenty  pounds 
sterling  apiece,  though  £0  was  considered  a  good  premium. 


349]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        43 

"  severely  proceed  "  against  it.  This  opinion  was  certainly 
faulty  and  was  based  upon  the  general  ground  of  expedi- 
ency. If  Lord  Mansfield  had  taken  the  pains  to  examine 
the  charter  he  would  have  found  that  to  Maryland  was  re- 
served the  exclusive  right  of  levying  duties  upon  commodi- 
ties imported  into  the  province ;  and  if  he  had  examined  the 
records  he  would  have  found  old  laws  actually  prohibiting  the 
importation  of  criminals.  Maryland  had  a  moral  as  well  as 
a  legal  right  to  impose  such  a  tariff.  Gov.  Sharpe,  however, 
advised  Baltimore  to  dissent  to  the  act,  giving  the  Attorney- 
General's  opinion  as  his  reason  for  such  action,  if  he  thought 
it  would  involve  him  in  trouble  with  the  Crown.  This  was 
not  done,  but  the  opinion,  though  given  by  the  Attorney  in 
his  capacity  as  a  private  lawyer,  and  in  nowise  binding  on 
the  Assembly,  was  used  to  prevent  the  placing  of  duties  on 
imported  convicts  in  other  supply  bills.  The  duty  of  £1  was 
collected  until  the  .£6000  were  sunk,  and  though  it  was  vir- 
tually borne  by  the  purchasers  of  servants,  every  subsequent 
attempt  by  the  Lower  House  to  tax  convicts  was  opposed. 

3. — The  Paper  Money  Controversy. 

About  this  time  another  important  issue  sprang  up — the 
paper  money  controversy.  Paper  currency  became  an  im- 
portant circulating  medium  of  the  Province  in  1733.1  To- 
bacco had  always  been  the  general  medium  of  exchange, 
though  other  commodities  were  used,  for  instance,  powder 
and  shot,  and  payment  in  kind  was  common.  Tobacco, 
however,  was  the  most  serviceable  and  obtainable  and  was 
never  superseded  in  Maryland  during  her  entire  colonial 
period.  The  production  of  tobacco  increased  greatly  and  its 
value  depreciated  in  consequence ;  English  money  and  other 
foreign  coins  were  almost  entirely  driven  from  the  Province. 
This  fact  explains  the  concessions  that  the  Assembly  was  so 
willing  to  make  down  to   1733  in  tobacco  duties  in  return 

1  Scharfs Maryland,  I.,  273-280. 


44         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [350 

for  a  commutation  of  the  Proprietary  quit-rents.  Attempts 
were  made  to  keep  English  money  in  circulation,  but  with- 
out much  success.  Numerous  foreign  coins  circulated  in 
Maryland  and  laws  were  passed  from  time  to  time  fixing  the 
rates  of  exchange.  But,  on  the  whole,  the  currency  of  the 
province  was  in  a  confused  state.  In  1731,  to  relieve  trade 
and  secure  a  more  stable  and  convenient  medium  of  exchange, 
an  emission  of  paper  money  was  proposed,  and  an  act  was 
passed  to  emit  £36,000  in  "bills  of  credit";  not  being  ap- 
proved by  the  Proprietor,  it  was  never  enforced.  But  the 
Proprietary  consent  was  won  over  in  1733  when  an  act  was 
passed  "for  Emitting  and  Making  Current,  Ninety  Thousand 
Pounds  ...  in  Bills  of  Credit."  This  amount  was  struck, 
and  the  act  provided  that  it  should  circulate  for  thirty-one 
years  from  September  29, 1733,  and  should  be  a  legal  tender 
in  the  province  for  nearly  all  payments;  exceptions  being 
clergy  dues,  tobacco  and  tonnage  duties  and  other  moneys 
payable  to  the  Lord  Proprietary.  All  "  fees,  levies  and  other 
duties,"  however,  might  be  discharged  in  bills  of  credit, 
allowing  the  difference  of  £33  J  per  hundred  between  sterling 
and  currency.1  This  made  the  £90,000  equivalent  to  £60,000 
sterling.  Various  provisions  were  made  to  put  the  act  into 
effect.  A  loan  office  was  provided  and  three  commissioners 
or  trustees  were  appointed  to  superintend  the  payment  and 
redemption  of  this  currency,  to  keep  account  of  all  money 
passing  through  their  hands  and  to  receive  securities  for 
money  loaned.  For  the  redemption  of  this  paper  currency  a 
duty  of  one  shilling  and  threepence  was  placed  on  all  exported 
tobacco  for  thirty-one  years.  The  last  clause  fixed  the  periods 
for  the  redemption  of  the  bills,  two  dates  being  set ;  the  first, 
September  29,  1748,  to  March  29,  1749 ;  during  this  time 
all  bills  brought  to  the  loan  office  were  to  be  cancelled  and 
new  bills  issued  to  the  value  of  two-thirds  thereof,  the  other 
one-third  being  redeemed.  It  was  expected  that  all  old  bills 
would  be  replaced  by  new  ones  at  this  first  payment,  though 

1  Bacon's  Laws  of  Maryland,  1733,  ch.  VI. 


351]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        45 

there  was  no  obligation  to  that  effect.  However,  the  final 
redemption  of  the  residue  of  the  bills  in  circulation  was  fixed 
for  September  19, 1764,  the  expiration  of  the  thirty-one  years, 
the  statutory  limit.  This  clause  is  an  important  one,  as  we 
shall  see,  for  it  was  the  cause  of  much  contention  between 
the  two  houses  of  Assembly  in  1755.  At  first,  on  account  of 
the  lack  of  confidence  felt  by  the  people  in  the  fund  provided 
for  its  redemption,  paper  money  rapidly  depreciated  until 
£230  currency  was  only  worth  £1 00  sterling.  But  as  soon 
as  the  people  became  convinced  of  the  "  goodness  of  the 
fund,"  and  when,  in  1748,  one-third  was  actually  redeemed, 
the  bills  rose  in  value,  and  by  1753  £150  currency  passed 
for  £100  sterling.1 

It  seems  that  in  1748,  the  first  period  provided  for 
redemption,  all  outstanding  paper  bills  were  not  presented 
for  reissue.  Only  £85,984  14s.  were  brought  in,  an 
amount  lacking  £4015  6s.  of  the  original  issue.  "  Some 
of  the  Politicians,"  says  Sharpe,  "  who  out  of  their  singular 
regard  for  the  Pocketts  of  their  Constituents  and  perhaps 
their  own  Interest " 2  discovered  that  fact  and  proposed  to 
make  use  of  it  to  embarrass  the  government.  A  large  majority 
of  the  House  of  Delegates  were  persuaded  that  the  £4000  in 
question  were  destroyed  by  fire  or  other  accidents,  and  that 
a  new  issue  to  the  same  amount  would  not  affect  the  value 
of  the  currency,  for  it  would  not  increase  the  sum  provided 
for  by  the  Paper  Currency  Act.  While  the  exigencies  of  the 
time  might  have  justified  a  reasoning  after  this  fashion,  yet 
it  was  treading  dangerous  ground  to  legislate  upon  a  sup- 
position. There  was  little  evidence  that  this  amount  of 
paper  had  been  destroyed ;  on  the  contrary,  there  was  reason 
to  believe  that  a  great  deal  of  it  was  still  in  circulation,  for 
small  quantities  were  held  by  people  living  at  considerable 
distances  from  the  seat  of  government,  who  did  not  think  it 
worth  their  while  to  make  a  special  trip  to  the  Loan  Office 


1  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  138,  etc. 

2  Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  162. 


46         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [352 

to  have  a  small  amount  exchanged.1  When  the  bill  for 
£7000  was  passed  by  the  Lower  House  it  was  provided  that 
£4015  6s.  of  it  should  be  a  new  issue  of  the  paper  money 
office.*  This  was  rejected  by  the  Council  for  the  reasons 
mentioned,  and  because  it  was  thought  dangerous  to  establish 
a  precedent  that  might  have  led  to  other  measures  having 
for  their  eifect  the  debasement  of  the  currency.  Maryland 
did  not  stand  alone  in  this  controversy,  for  New  York  and 
New  Jersey  had  also  refused  to  vote  supplies  except  they  be 
allowed  a  new  emission  of  paper  currency,  and  royal  instruc- 
tions prevented  their  governors  from  consenting  to  this. 
Pennsylvania  likewise  was  very  anxious  to  "strike  more 
paper."  In  Maryland  the  paper  money  controversy  created  a 
serious  obstruction  and  blocked  tighter  than  ever  the  wheels 
of  administration. 

4. —  Refusal  of  the  Proprietary  to  share  the 
Burdens  of  Taxation. 

Since  the  voting  and  expenditure  of  the  supply  of  £6000, 
three  fruitless  sessions  of  the  Assembly  had  been  wasted  in 
unsuccessful  efforts  to  put  the  province  in  a  state  of  defense. 
Their  work  was  dissipated  in  disputes  over  ordinary  licenses, 
imported  convicts  and  the  paper  currency.  Sharpe's  urgent 
appeals  were  in  vain,  and  the  Lower  House  remained  firm  in 
the  conviction  of  the  justice  of  its  course.  Neither  side  was 
willing  to  make  any  concessions  to  the  other,  and  no  agree- 
ment was  reached  between  the  administration  and  the  dele- 
gates. All  the  while  reports  were  sent  from  Fort  Cumberland 
to  the  Governor  concerning  the  frequent  depredations  and 
murders  which  were  committed  by  the  Indians  among  the 
"back  inhabitants,"8  as  the  people  in  the  western  part  of 
the  province  were  called.     These  distressing  facts  were  laid 

1  A  rise  in  the  value  of  the  currency  at  this  time  would  tend  to  give 
further  credence  to  this  view. 

2  The  remainder  was  provided  for  by  special  taxes. 
3 Sharpe  Correspondence,  I.,  365. 


353]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada,         47 

before  the  Assembly  by  the  Governor,  and  the  Lower  House 
recommended  a  company  of  rangers  to  picket  the  frontier 
and  £1 500  for  their  support;  but  the  bill  failed,  presumably 
because  it  contained  a  clause  placing  an  additional  tax  of 
five  shillings  on  imported  convicts.  As  there  was  no  news 
from  Braddock  and  further  delay  was  dangerous,  Sharpe 
secured  a  small  company  of  volunteers  and  hastened  to  Fort 
Cumberland.  While  on  his  way  thither  a  report  of  Brad- 
dock's  defeat  reached  him,1  occasioning  great  surprise  and 
producing  the  wildest  commotion  among  the  settlers.  A 
private  subscription  had  been  raised  by  the  members  of  the 
Council  and  other  gentlemen  of  the  province ;  this  was  all 
Sharpe  could  count  upon,  and  out  of  it  he  garrisoned  several 
forts  or  places  of  refuge  for  the  people  of  Frederick  County, 
and  supported  at  Fort  Cumberland  Dagworthy's  company, 
the  only  body  of  Maryland  troops  that  had  accompanied  the 
Braddock  expedition.  Every  effort  was  made  by  Sharpe  to 
quiet  the  panic-stricken  inhabitants  and  strengthen  the  fron- 
tier defense.  To  say  that  he  was  partially  successful  is  a 
tribute  to  his  executive  ability,  for  Sharpe  was  left  to  cope 
with  the  situation  almost  alone.  As  it  was,  a  large  number 
of  the  western  inhabitants  left  their  homes  and  fled  to  Balti- 
more and  other  places.  Fort  Cumberland  was  merely  the 
pretense  of  a  fortification  and  was  too  far  west  to  be  of 
service  in  protecting  the  province.  If  the  French  on  the 
Ohio  had  not  changed  their  tactics  at  this  juncture  the 
consequences  might  have  been  serious.  The  Indians  made 
several  though  unsuccessful  attempts  to  capture  Fort  Cum- 
berland. In  the  meantime  Lord  Baltimore  became  aroused 
for  the  safety  of  his  western  lands  and  bowed  to  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  Assembly  ;  he  yielded  his  claims 2  to  the  ordi- 
nary licenses  and  hawkers'  and  pedlers'  licenses  as  well,  as 
soon  as  the  news  of  Braddock's  defeat  reached  him,8  and 
issued  instructions  to  his  Lieutenant-Governor  to  pass  any 

1  July  15,  1755.     See  also  above,  p.  24. 
2£640  per  annum.    Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  368. 
3Sept.  9,  1755. 


48         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [354 

act  of  the  Assembly  for  a  money  loan  which  appropriated 
these  licenses  for  the  "  common  cause."  The  Lord  Proprie- 
tary flattered  himself  that  his  concessions  would  settle  all 
misunderstanding  between  the  administration  and  the  legis- 
lature ;  but  he  was  mistaken.  It  was  easily  seen  that  this 
concession  had  been  forced  from  his  Lordship  reluctantly. 
Far  from  being  a  great  favor,  it  was  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  power  and  authority  of  the  Lower  House  of  the  Provin- 
cial Assembly. 

By  patience  and  determination  the  House  of  Delegates  had 
won  its  issue  with  the  Proprietary,  though  five  or  six  almost 
fruitless  sessions  had  been  spent  in  the  effort.  The  Proprie- 
tor had  lost  through  undue  interference  with  the  right,  which 
the  province  had  now  acquired,  to  levy  its  own  taxes  and 
control  public  revenues.  The  long  disputes  over  imported 
convicts,  paper  money,  and  especially  ordinary  licenses  had 
aroused  discontent  with  the  Proprietary  administration,  in- 
difference for  the  English  government  that  supported  its 
policy,  and  led  the  representatives  of  the  people  to  prejudice 
their  own  safety  to  maintain  their  liberty. 

After  this  broadside  had  taken  effect  the  Lower  House 
aimed  another.  The  vantage-ground  they  had  gained  em- 
boldened them  to  attack  the  personal  or  private  rights  of  the 
Lord  Proprietary.  This  leads  us  to  the  fourth  cause  of 
Maryland's  inactivity  in  the  French  and  Indian  War  :  that 
is,  the  refusal  of  the  Proprietary  to  share  the  burdens  of  the 
war  and  waive  the  right  to  have  his  estates  exempted  from 
taxation. 

During  the  autumn  of  1755  nothing  was  done  to  check  the 
depredations  and  outrages  of  the  Indians  on  the  frontier,  for 
the  Assembly  was  not  called  together  again  until  February, 
1756.  Gov.  Shirley,  of  Massachusetts,  had  succeeded  to  the 
chief  command  of  the  American  forces  after  the  death  of 
Braddock.  A  council  of  war  was  held  in  New  York  in 
December,  1755,  where  the  plans  for   1756  were  decided.1 

^harpe  Cor.,  I.,  315-320. 


355]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         49 

While  the  scene  of  action  was  transferred  to  the  Canada  bor- 
der, it  was  left  to  the  tact  of  Governor  Sharpe,  who  was  ap- 
pointed commander  for  the  Southern  colonies,  to  organize  an 
expedition  against  Fort  Duquesne.  There  existed  the  old 
desire  to  recover  this  American  fort  and  overawe  their  Indian 
enemies,  at  whose  hands  they  suffered  more  than  from 
the  French,  for  the  Indians  had  improved  the  opportunity 
for  plunder  offered  by  French  successes.  To  cope  with 
such  a  state  of  things  the  activity  and  cooperation  of  the 
colonies  were  imperative.  In  Maryland,  as  in  Pennsylvania, 
the  force  of  public  opinion  was  also  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
provincial  government  to  induce  speedy  action.  With  the 
hope  that  the  pressure  of  circumstances  might  have  the  de- 
sired effect  on  the  Assembly,  Sharpe  called  it  together  again, 
February  23,  1756.  The  Assembly  appeared  willing  to 
grant  supplies,  provided  it  could  have  its  own  way  in  direct- 
ing the  measures  for  raising  them.  After  a  delay  of  nearly 
two  months,  a  supply  of  <£40,000  was  voted  by  the  Lower 
House.  To  raise  this  large  grant  taxes  were  placed  upon  a 
variety  of  commodities,  imports  and  exports  ;  even  bachelors 
and  billiard  tables  were  not  omitted ;  while  taxes  imposed 
by  previous  acts,  notably  that  of  1754,  were  continued  by 
this  act  of  1756.1  With  unswerving  constancy  the  Lower 
House  included  all  the  objectionable  features  of  former  sup- 
ply bills  and  a  few  more  besides,  such  as  the  duty  on  im- 
ported convicts,  ordinary  licenses,  new  emissions  of  paper 
money  and  a  land  tax.  The  last  was  distinctly  a  new  feature, 
for  it  was  the  first  tax  on  land  ever  imposed  and  collected  in 
Maryland;  but  the  great  demand  for  revenue  necessitated 
recourse  to  such  a  tax.  The  bill  met  with  a  stormy  recep- 
tion. "  Too  much  dictation  by  the  Lower  House,"  objected 
the  Council.  It  is  true  the  delegates  had  prescribed  rather 
minutely  the  purposes  for  which  each  portion  of  the  money 
should  be  appropriated,  and  left  but  little  to  the  discretion 
of  the  Governor  except  to  see  that  they  were  properly  carried 

1  Bacon's  Laws  of  Maryland,  1756,  ch.  V. 


50         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [356 

out.  The  Lower  House  had  acquired  powers  over  money 
bills  equal  to  those  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  this  was 
a  practical  assertion  of  them.  The  duty  on  convicts,  the 
emission  of  paper  money  and  the  land  tax  got  their  share  of 
opprobrium.  These  were  "  some  "  of  the  reasons  for  the 
rejection  of  the  bill  by  the  Upper  House.  But  the  delegates 
were  firm  in  resisting  nearly  every  attempted  compromise  of 
their  schemes  and  plans,  and  often  allowed  the  debate  to  fall 
away  into  parliamentary  quibbling,  in  which  the  real  points 
at  issue  were  lost  sight  of.  A  second  and  a  third  time  the 
same  bill  for  a  supply  of  ,£40,000,  with  a  few  slight  modi- 
fications, was  passed  by  the  Lower  House  and  as  often  re- 
jected by  the  Upper.  The  delegates  assumed  too  great  a 
power  over  the  settling  of  the  land  tax,  it  was  objected ;  after 
what  manner  we  shall  see. 
t/  One  of  the  most  important  measures  introduced  into  this 
bill  was  the  provision  that  a  small  tax,  one  shilling  per  hun- 
dred acres,  should  be  imposed  on  all  freehold  estates,  and  the 
Proprietary  lands  as  well.1  The  Lord  Proprietary  was  lord 
and  owner  of  the  soil,  and  in  virtue  of  these  rights  his  lands 
were  beyond  the  control  of  the  Assembly.  Lord  Baltimore 
held  a  large  quantity  of  vacant  land  in  the  western  part  of 
the  province.     Frederick,  who  was  only  anxious  to  swell  his 

1  The  lands  of  the  Lord  Proprietary  were  of  three  classes,  manor, 
reserved,  and  vacant  lands.  The  manor  lands  were  large  tracts,  held 
by  the  Lord  Proprietor,  that  had  been  properly  surveyed  and  a  descrip- 
tion of  whose  bounds  and  general  features  had  been  entered  upon  the 
public  records.  They  were  leased  in  parcels  to  tenants.  The  reserved 
lands  were  tracts  of  territory  which  were  ordered  to  be  held  in  reserve 
for  the  Proprietor,  on  account  of  their  fertility,  mineral  wealth,  contiguity 
to  his  manors  or  towns.  These  reserved  lands  had  not  been  surveyed 
nor  laid  out,  nor  designated  by  any  particular  name,  as  the  manors  were ; 
but  like  the  manor  lands  they  were  rented  in  portions  by  his  Lordship's 
agents,  who  were  forbidden  to  sell  or  gran  them  to  any  one.  All  other 
lands  owned  by  the  Proprietor,  notably  those  in  the  western  part  of  the 
province  and  on  the  frontier,  and  which  were  open  at  the  Land  Office  to 
purchase  by  any  one  at  the  "common  rates,"  were  called  vacant  lands. 
These  afforded  no  immediate  revenue.    Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  426. 


357]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        51 

income,  urged  Sharpe  repeatedly  to  advance  the  price  of  his 
western  lands  and  the  rents  of  his  manors  ;  but  the  insecurity 
of  the  western  border  diminished  the  number  of  applications 
for  this  land,  and  in  consequence  it  was  difficult  to  raise  the 
price  of  that  for  which  there  was  little  sale.  The  Proprietary 
gave  no  assistance  to  his  province  in  these  trying  times,  and 
in  this  instance  one  can  hardly  help  excusing  the  Assembly 
for  regarding  Frederick  as  an  obstacle  that  had  to  be  con- 
quered. In  the  tax  upon  land  his  manor  and  reserved 
lands  were  included,  and  in  this  way  Baltimore  was  made  to 
contribute  a  small  portion  at  least  towards  the  defense  of  his 
own  province.  Had  Frederick  come  promptly  forward  to 
the  relief  of  the  people  with  a  modest  contribution  he  might 
have  created  a  loyal  feeling  among  them  and  have  saved 
himself  many  vexatious  encroachments  upon  his  rights.  The 
first  attempt  to  tax  the  Proprietary  in  Pennsylvania  was 
responded  to  by  the  Penns  with  a  contribution  of  .£5000. 
Furthermore,  the  safety  of  the  province  settled,  the  value  of 
his  western  land  would  be  restored ;  as  Sharpe  tried  to  con- 
vince him,  the  annual  loss  to  his  Lordship  was  at  this  time 
much  greater  than  the  tax  proposed  upon  his  estates.  There- 
fore it  could  only  be  short-sighted  policy  to  hamper  the 
Governor  with  instructions  that  led  Sharpe  to  entertain  uno 
sanguine  hopes  of  the  bill."  His  Lordship  was  afraid  of 
adding  another  precedent  to  those  which  had  already  marked 
the  downfall  of  his  feudal  prerogatives.  Sharpe  again  expressed 
his  former  conviction  that  it  must  be  left  to  Parliament  to 
step  in  and  "  save  the  Assembly  the  trouble  of  providing  for 
its  own  safety."  However,  the  more  Baltimore  resisted,  the 
weaker  his  position  grew  :  a  conference  of  the  two  branches 
resulted  in  a  satisfactory  agreement  upon  the  bill. 

In  the  meantime  a  change  of  sentiment  had  taken  place 
among  the  councillors  of  the  administration;  it  was  con- 
sidered futile  to  oppose  the  Lower  House  further  at  this  time 
and  thereby  jeopard  the  safety  of  the  province ;  consequently, 
Sharpe,  aided  by  the  persuasion  of  the  Proprietary  Council, 


52        Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [358 

came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  best  to  assent  to  the  bill 
if  passed  again,  even  though  it  contained  the  objectionable 
tax  upon  Lord  Baltimore's  land.  His  excuses  were  "  the 
preservation  of  his  province,"  the  loss  in  Proprietary  revenue, 
and  the  parsimony  of  Frederick  himself.  In  regard  to  the 
latter,  Sharpe  said :  "  If  an  Act  of  Generosity  in  his  Ldp 
had  afforded  me  the  least  Room  I  would  not  have  despaired 
of  making  them  [i.  e.  the  Assembly]  ashamed  of  their 
Behaviour  and  of  rendering  them  odious  to  their  own  Con- 
stituents." In  the  conference  between  the  two  branches  of 
the  legislature  many  trifling  objections  were  adjusted.  The 
duty  on  imported  convicts  was  excepted,  an  additional  land 
tax  was  provided  for  to  supply  any  deficiency  that  might 
occur  in  the  sinking  fund,  and  above  all  it  was  mutually 
agreed  that  Lord  Baltimore's  manors  and  rent-paying  reserved 
lands  should  bear  a  tax  equal  to  that  imposed  upon  lands 
patented  or  granted  by  the  Lords  Proprietary  to  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  province,  while  his  other  lands  should  be  ex- 
empted. The  bill  for  a  supply  of  £40,000  was  passed  May 
14,  1756,  after  thirteen  weeks  of  delay  and  dispute.  Sharpe 
took  the  situation  philosophically,  though  he  expressed  his 
disapproval  of  the  Assembly's  conduct.  Conscious  that  "  the 
Lower  House  would  not  let  the  Lives  of  a  few  inhabitants 
come  in  Competition  with  their  Schemes  and  Views,"  anxious 
alike  for  the  safety  of  the  province  and  the  increase  of  his 
lord's  revenues,  Sharpe  took  the  advice  of  the  Proprietary 
Council  and  assented  to  the  land  tax.  He  had  acted  con- 
trary to  Baltimore's  wishes.  It  was  not  without  "some 
Apprehentions,"  said  he,  "that  this  Step  .  .  .  would  be 
censured  as  a  culpable  Concession  and  subversive  of  His 
Ldp's  Rights  and  prerogatives";  but  the  security  of  the 
province  was  his  first  duty,  and  Sharpe  yielded. 

Frederick's  indecision  had  decided  Sharpe  in  the  course  he 
took,  and  upon  it  he  felt  willing  to  stake  his  reputation  with 
the   Lord  Proprietary.1     Although  Sharpe  was   advised  to 

Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  399. 


359]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         53 

follow  in  the  path  of  Governor  Morris  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
"  guarding  against  any  Invasion  of  Proprietary  rights  and 
prerogatives,"  he  received  no  definite  and  peremptory  instruc- 
tions upon  the  issues  between  Lord  Baltimore  and  the  people. 
Governor  Sharpe  had  solicited  instructions  to  remove  the 
"  uncertainty,"  and  stood  ready  to  execute  them  though  he 
should  be  called  by  the  people  "an  Odious  Instrument"  for 
so  doing.  Lord  Baltimore's  revenue  the  past  year  had  fallen 
<£1600  below  what  it  had  been  the  year  previous,  and  this 
was  attributed  to  the  abandonment  of  the  western  lands  and 
their  depreciation  in  value ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  Pro- 
prietary land  tax,  for  the  five  years  to  which  it  was  limited, 
only  amounted  to  .£400.  "  Was  His  Ldp's  Case  my  own," 
writes  the  Governor  at  the  time,  "  I  am  sure  I  would  never 
have  hesitated  a  moment  to  contribute  my  Share  with  the 
people  to  defend  the  province  and  annoy  the  Enemy."1  It 
is  clear  that  a  liberal  stroke  on  the  part  of  Lord  Baltimore, 
a  modest  but  sympathetic  contribution,  would  likely  have 
saved  him  considerable  embarrassment.  By  the  act  of  1756 
the  Assembly  scored  another  point  against  Proprietary  rule. 

5. — Pennsylvania's  Influence  upon  Maryland. 

Let  us  turn  for  a  moment  to  Pennsylvania  to  see  the  influ- 
ence exerted  by  her  upon  Maryland.  The  conduct  of  both 
provinces  with  regard  to  the  land  tax  was  very  similar,  for 
each  had  the  same  interests  at  stake  and  the  same  kind  of  a 
government.  Sharpe  watched  the  course  of  Pennsylvania's 
Assembly  closely  and  reported  every  favorable  move  to  his 
own  legislative  body,  hoping  in  the  event  of  his  neighbors 
passing  an  "acceptable  bill"  that  Maryland's  Assembly 
would  be  influenced  to  become  "  Imitators  of  the  Quakers' 
conduct." 

General  Braddock's  defeat  was  as  much  of  a  surprise  to 
the  Pennsylvanians  as  it  was  to  Marylanders.  They,  too, 
had  practically  left  the  British  to  fight  their  own  battles,  but 

Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  427. 


54         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [360 

the  Assembly  was  now  sufficiently  aroused  to  pass  a  vote  of 
£50,000.  To  raise  this  sum  the  General  Assembly  proposed 
a  tax  of  "  twelve  pence  per  pound  and  twenty  shillings  per 
Head,  Yearly  for  two  Years,  on  all  the  Estates  real  and  per- 
sonal, and  Taxables  n  within  the  province.  All  the  lands  of 
the  Proprietaries  as  well  as  those  of  the  people  were 
included.  This  proposition  was  made  July  30,  1755,  and 
it  fell  with  the  eifect  of  a  bombshell  upon  the  Proprie- 
tors. It  looked  to  them  like  an  effort  to  destroy  their  author- 
ity. The  measure  aimed  in  particular  at  the  vacant  lands 
held  by  the  Proprietary,  and  with  some  reason,  too.  Gov- 
ernor Morris,  in  obedience  to  his  instructions,  opposed  the 
proposition  with  all  his  skill  in  argument.  The  position  of 
the  people  was  based  upon  equity  and  common  benefit.  It 
is  but  fair,  said  the  Assembly,  since  we  are  called  upon  to 
defend  the  Proprietary  estates  on  the  frontier,  that  our  Pro- 
prietors should  bear  their  share  of  the  burdens.  The  oppo- 
sition of  the  administration  to  this  measure  was  based  on 
prerogative,  precedent  and  law.  Says  Governor  Morris : 
1.  "All  Governors,  from  the  nature  of  their  office,  are  ex- 
empt from  the  payment  of  taxes."  2.  "  This  exemption  is 
supported  by  a  positive  law  of  the  province ;  for  a  law  of  the 
province,  investing  the  assessors  with  power  to  assess  and 
lay  taxes  in  the  several  counties,  contains  an  express  proviso 
that  the  Proprietary  estates  should  not  be  taxed."  3.  "  It  is 
contrary  to  the  constant  practice  and  usage  of  this  and  all 
other  Proprietary  Governments  to  lay  any  tax  upon  the  lands 
or  estates  of  the  Proprietaries  exercising  the  government  by 
themselves  or  their  lieutenants." '  The  Assembly  asserted 
a  right  to  tax  the  Proprietors  as  landlords  and  not  as  gov- 
ernors, and  requested  Gov.  Morris  not  to  "  make  himself  the 
hateful  Instrument  of  reducing  a  free  people  to  the  abject 
state  of  Vassalage."  "  What  Laws  of  Imposition,"  said  he, 
"  .  .  .  have  I  attempted   to  force   down    your   Throats  ? " 

'Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  VI.,  525,  526. 
2  Pennsylvania  Colonial  Records,  VI.,  584. 


361]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         55 

The  Assembly  responds  :  aA  Law  to  Tax  the  people  of  Penn- 
sylvania To  defend  the  Proprietary  Estate,  and  to  exempt 
the  Proprietary  Estate  from  bearing  any  part  of  the  Tax,  is, 
may  it  please  the  Governor,  a  Law  abhorrent  to  common 
Justice,  common  Eeason  and  common  Sense."  While  the 
Administration  had  law  and  precedent  on  its  side,  the  prop- 
osition of  the  Assembly  seems  to  have  been  fair  and  just. 
Thus  did  the  burgesses  express  their  feelings  toward  Pro- 
prietary rule,  for  they  were  determined  to  endanger  the 
safety  of  the  colony,  if  necessary,  to  attain  their  ends.  Gov- 
ernor Morris  came  forward  with  a  compromise  and  proposed 
to  grant  bounty  lands  to  those  who  would  volunteer  for  the 
expedition  against  the  French.  Lands  west  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies  were  to  be  given,  without  purchase  money  and  free 
from  the  payment  of  quit-rents  for  fifteen  years,  and  then  not 
to  exceed  the  common  quit-rent  *  of  the  province.  But  this 
did  not  satisfy  the  Assembly,  and  judging  from  the  tone  of 
their  messages,  they  deemed  it  almost  an  impertinence  in  the 
Governor  to  have  suggested  an  alternative  to  their  measure. 
Consequently  the  bill  for  £50,000  fell  through.  Shortly 
after,  another  bill,  appropriating  £ 60,000  for  the  same  pur- 
pose and  with  substantially  the  same  provisions,  was  pro- 
posed. Governor  Morris  could  not  give  his  assent  to  this 
bill.  He  was  firm  with  the  Assembly  and  faithful  to  his 
superiors ;  but  he  was  honest  enough  to  confess  that  the 
Proprietors'  real  reason  for  not  yielding  to  the  tax  upon 
their  lands  was  "  to  preserve  the  rights  of  their  Station  ;  if 
they  gave  up  these  they  would  soon  be  stript  of  everything 
they  had  a  right  to  enjoy,  both  power  and  property." 3  The 
Governor  then  expressed  a  desire  that  the  Penns  be  taxed 
by  Parliament,  if  they  were  to  be  taxed  at  all,  "  for  if  the 
power  is  ever  given  into  the  hands  of  the  people  here,"  he 
wrote,  "  they  will  use  it  without  mercy."  4 

1 4s.  2d.  sterling. 

2 Nov.  6,  1755. 

3  Pa.  Col.  Records,  VI.,  544. 

4 Pa.  Col.  Records,  VI.,  738-9. 


56         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [362 

But  the  perseverance  of  the  Assembly  bore  good  fruit.  In 
the  meanwhile  the  Proprietors  had  been  informed  of  the  de- 
feat of  Braddock,  the  insecurity  of  the  province  and  the 
doings  of  the  Assembly.  Governor  Morris's  conduct  was 
commended  and  the  Proprietors,  in  order  to  settle  the  dis- 
pute, offered  a  contribution  of  £5000  with  a  proviso  that 
their  estates  should  be  exempted  from  taxation.  While  this 
was  proffered  as  a  free  gift  and  not  as  a  commutation  for 
their  share  of  the  Assembly's  appropriation,  Morris  was 
instructed  that  if  the  burgesses  provided  simply  the  difference, 
£55,000,  he  should  not  insist  upon  the  balance.1  This  is 
significant ;  the  Assembly  interpreted  it  as  a  concession  on 
the  part  of  the  Proprietaries,  and  this  it  certainly  was.  The 
gift  was  accepted  and  the  bill  for  £60,000  passed  November 
26, 1755,  but  the  Assembly  provided  only  for  the  striking  of 
£55,000  in  bills  of  credit,  the  remainder  being  supplied  by 
the  gift  of  £5000  which  was  accepted  in  lieu  of  a  tax  upon 
the  Proprietary  estates.2  Although  the  administration  thought 
it  had  staved  off  the  idea  of  taxing  the  lands  of  the  Proprie- 
tary, the  people  had  won  a  real  victory.  In  the  interim 
the  people  of  Maryland  were  watching  Pennsylvania  closely, 
and  so  was  Sharpe ;  he  was  awaiting  the  turn  of  the  tide. 
If  their  Assembly  passed  a  suitable  bill  he  intended  calling 
together  his  own  ;  on  the  other  hand,  unfavorable  action  by 
his  neighbor  would  make  it  useless,  so  the  Governor  of 
Maryland  thought;  for  he  was  confident  that  if  Pennsyl- 
vania set  an  ill  example  Maryland  would  be  sure  to  follow 
it.3  But  the  passage  of  £60,000  in  the  autumn  of  1755  gave 
him  fresh  hope.  Consequently,  he  called  his  Assembly 
together  early  in  1756  and  expected  a  ready  response.  In 
this  he  was  partially  disappointed,  as  we  know,  for  the  Mary- 

JPa.  Col.  Records,  VI.,  731. 

2  The  bill  was  not  satisfactory,  but  passed  the  Council  because  of  the 
restlessness  of  the  people  for  some  definite  action.  Pa.  Col.  Records,  VI., 
734;  also  VI.,  737-738. 

3 Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  269. 


363]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         57 

land  Assembly  adopted  Pennsylvania's  tactics.  The  land- 
tax  was  again  the  bugbear,  and  the  Governor  and  his 
council  were  forced  to  reject  the  first  proposal  to  grant 
<£40,000.  At  this  period  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  had 
the  same  controversies,  but  the  tax  proposed  in  Maryland 
was  quite  different  from  the  so-called  "  pound-tax  " 1  of  Penn- 
sylvania. For  instance,  the  latter  included  all  the  Proprie- 
taries' personal  and  real  estate  in  the  province,  which  was 
taxed  and  assessed  according  to  its  value,  i.  e.  at  the  rate  of 
12d.  per  £,  by  such  assessors  as  the  people  should  elect. 
Maryland,  on  the  contrary,  proposed  a  specific  tax  of  Is. 
per  hundred  acres,  which  embraced  the  Proprietary  manor 
and  reserved  lands,2  but  excluded  the  vacant  lands.  The 
Lower  House  even  receded  from  this,  as  we  have  seen,  and 
agreed  to  tax  only  those  parts  of  his  lordship's  reserved 
lauds  which  were  actually  leased  out  and  paid  a  rent ;  the 
remainder  being  classed  with  the  vacant  lands.  Thus  Mary- 
land's proposition  was  different  from  that  of  Pennsylvania 
and  far  more  reasonable.  Nevertheless  it  was  treated  with 
more  indifference  by  Lord  Baltimore  than  was  shown  by  the 
Penns.3  This  may  partly  account  for  the  easy  victory  which 
the  Assembly  gained  over  the  administration  in  March,  1756, 
for  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  was  forced  upon  Governor 
Sharpe  by  Frederick's  inJecision.  In  truth,  Maryland  scored 
a  victory  before  her  neighbor,  and  her  example  reacted  by 
way  of  encouragement  upon  Pennsylvania.  In  the  meantime 
William  Denny  had  succeeded  Morris  as  Governor  of  Penn- 
sylvania.4 The  Assembly  tried  its  persuasive  powers  upon 
him  with  a  bill  to  grant  XI 00,000  for  the  King's  service, 
including  in  its  provisions  a  tax  upon  the  estates  of  the  Pro- 
prietaries.    This   bill    was   rejected;   but  Governor  Denny 

1  i.  e.  12  pence  per  £,  and  20  shillings  per  head. 

2  See  above,  p.  50,  note. 

3  For  as  soon  as  the  Penns  received  Gov.  Morris's  letter  of  July  30, 1755, 
they  ordered  a  contribution  of  £5000.     Pa.  Col.  Records,  VI.,  730, 

4  August,  1756. 


JIIVERSIT 


58         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [364 

was  more  plastic  in  the  hands  of  the  Assembly  than  Morris 
and  in  due  time  they  were  able  to  win  him  to  their  own 
schemes. 

Benjamin  Franklin  was  at  this  time  a  leader  in  the  Assem- 
bly. So  powerful  was  his  influence  and  so  effectually  did  he 
champion  the  views  of  the  Assembly  that  he  was  even 
accused  by  the  administration  of  trying  to  take  the  govern- 
ment out  of  the  hands  of  the  Proprietaries.  It  was  now 
determined  to  send  a  representative  to  England  to  present 
their  grievances,  and  Franklin  was  selected 2  as  the  fittest 
advocate  to  exonerate  the  Assembly  before  Parliament  and 
expose  the  "  Iniquity  of  the  Proprietary  Instructions."  He 
arrived  in  London  July  27,  1757,  and  wisely  resolved  to  see 
the  Proprietaries  first.  Before  them  he  laid  the  complaints  of 
the  Pennsylvanians,  the  most  important  of  which,  we  remem- 
ber, was  the  question  concerning  the  taxing  of  the  Proprie- 
tors' estates.  Franklin  was  referred  to  their  solicitor, 
Ferdinand  John  Paris,  "a  proud,  angry  man,"  as  Pennsyl- 
vania's representative  termed  him.  Franklin  refused  to  deal 
with  any  one  but  the  Penns  themselves.  His  petition  was 
referred  to  the  Attorney-General  for  the  latter's  opinion. 
What  the  Attorney's  opinion  was,  if  he  gave  any,  Franklin 
never  learned,  but  about  a  year  later  the  Proprietaries  "  sent 
a  long  message  to  the  Assembly,"  says  Franklin,  "  drawn  up 
and  signed  by  Paris,  reciting  my  paper,  .  .  .  giving  a  flimsy 
justification  of  their  conduct,  adding  that  they  should  be 
willing  to  accommodate  matters  if  the  Assembly  would  send 
out  some  person  of  candour  to  treat  with  them  for  that  pur- 
pose, intimating  thereby  that  I  was  not  such." 3 

In  the  meantime  Governor  Denny  had  yielded  to  the  pres- 
sure upon  him  ;  he  had  been  persuaded  by  the  Assembly  to 
pass  an  act,4  wherein  the  estates  of  the  Proprietaries  were 

1  Pa.  Col.  Records,  VI.,  739. 

2  Feb.,  1757. 

3  Franklin's  Works,  I.,  p.  298  (J.  Bigelow  edition). 

4  For  £100,000,  passed  in  April,  1759.  The  estates  of  the  Proprietors 
were  assessed  and  taxed  by  assessors  of  the  people's  choosing.    By  this 


365]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        59 

taxed  in  common  with  those  of  the  people.  This  was  the 
grand  rallying  point  of  all  their  disputes,  and  now  that  the 
Assembly  had  carried  the  provincial  administration  with 
them,  instead  of  responding  to  the  message  of  the  Proprie- 
taries, they  sent  over  the  act  itself  for  confirmation.  The 
Proprietaries  determined  to  prevent  it  from  receiving  the 
royal  assent  and  employed  able  counsel  to  argue  their  case. 
Franklin  now  appeared  before  the  Board  of  Trade 1  to  defend 
the  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  but  they  reported  unfavorably 
upon  the  act.  However,  the  act  was  afterwards  reviewed 
before  the  King  in  Council,  and  through  the  aid  of  Lord 
Mansfield  the  report  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  was  reversed.2 
Indeed,  the  Assembly  had  anticipated  the  order  of  Council 
by  the  levy  of  one  year's  tax  under  the  act  in  question. 
Pennsylvania's  victory  over  her  Proprietaries  was  decisive. 

Act  the  Proprietaries  were  subjected  to  the  same  taxes  as  were  laid  upon 
other  lands  by  the  several  Acts  that  were  passed  after  1754.  The  Act  was 
to  continue  for  twelve  years,  and  it  was  estimated  that  within  that  time 
the  Lords  Proprietary  would  be  made  to  pay  about  £72,000. 

1  May,  1760. 

2  Franklin's  Works,  I.,  p.  300  (Bigelow's  ed.).     Bancroft's  United 
States,  II.,  529-530. 


CONCLUSION. 

DAWN  OP  INDEPENDENCE. 

From  Governor  Sharpe's  correspondence  we  learn  the  real 
motives  of  the  Assembly's  actions.  His  letters  to  his  own 
brothers,  in  particular,  contain  calm  and  disinterested  surveys 
of  Maryland  politics  at  that  time.  It  is  clear  that  Maryland 
failed  in  the  duty  she  owed  her  sister  provinces  and  the 
mother-country,  and  were  there  no  circumstances  to  explain 
this  fact  her  behavior  would  be  inexcusable. 

Indifference  and  "  unseasonable  parsimony  "  are  the  first 
causes  that  occur  to  us.  It  was  with  the  greatest  difficulty, 
we  remember,  that  the  province  was  brought  to  a  sense  of 
her  danger  when  the  French  were  occupying  the  Ohio  Valley, 
and  not  until  Washington's  surrender  were  they  induced  to 
vote  a  supply.  They  "  looked  on  the  incursions  of  their 
ambitious  and  insulting  enemies,"1  says  Sharpe,  "  with  the 
greatest  indifference."  The  Assembly  was  excessively  frugal 
and  they  objected  to  being  burdened  with  taxes.  Only  small 
sums  were  voted,  and  when  to  save  appearances  apparently 
liberal  bills  passed  the  Lower  House  they  were  clogged  with 
provisions  that  prevented  them  from  becoming  laws.  This 
is  also  seen  in  the  unwillingness  of  Maryland  to  take  any 
aggressive  steps  or  to  carry  war  outside  of  her  own  territory. 
All  that  was  done  was  confined  to  the  defense  of  the  frontier 
and  the  fortification  of  the  province  against  invasion.  The 
Assembly  would  pass  no  effective  militia  law  nor  provide 
equipment  for  the  provincial  troops,  and  it  not  only  refused 
to  allow  its  troops  to  go  beyond  its  own  borders  except  in  the 
pay  of  Great  Britain,  but  also  neglected  to  support  the  garri- 
sons within  the  province.     When  in  1758  the  French  with- 

1  Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  109. 


367]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         61 

drew  from  the  Ohio  Valley  and  the  Southern  colonies  were 
out  of  danger,  Sharpe  wrote  to  Baltimore  :  "  As  the  Inhabi- 
tants of  the  Province  .  .  .  are  not  ambitious  of  acquiring  a 
Reputation  for  Zeal  and  exemplary  Loyalty,  they  seem  to  be 
very  indifferent  about  the  Event  of  the  Campaign." 1  We 
may  even  go  a  step  further  and  say  that  the  Assembly  or 
many  of  the  leading  men  acted  disloyally,  for  the  Governor, 
in  his  efforts  to  raise  money  from  the  people  by  private  sub- 
scriptions, was  opposed  by  the  Burgesses,  who  endeavored  to 
persuade  the  people  that  if  money  were  raised  by  such 
methods  they  must  expect  to  do  without  Assemblies  and 
abide  by  ordinances  rather  than  "Laws  made  .  .  .  with 
their  own  consent."  "  With  the  empty  sounds  of  Liberty 
and  Priveledge,"  says  Sharpe,  "...  these  Tribunes  impose 
on  the  weak  minds  of  the  people  .  .  .  while  .  .  .  they  effect- 
ually contribute  to  their  Destruction."  The  refusal  of  the 
Assembly  to  support  Dagworthy  and  his  company  at  Fort 
Cumberland  and  the  reduction  of  the  already  small  provin- 
cial force  to  300  in  1757  seem  inexcusable.  One  member 
of  the  Assembly,  it  is  said,  went  among  the  soldiers  and  told 
them  that  since  no  money  had  been  raised  to  pay  them  they 
were  not  obliged  to  continue  in  the  service,  and  that  if  they 
did  the  Assembly  would  never  agree  to  pay  them.  More- 
over, their  treatment  of  royal  requisitions  and  their  conduct 
toward  the  Roman  Catholics  showed  clearly  their  temper 
towards  all  dictation.  The  system  known  as  "  Crown  Requi- 
sitions "  was  imposed  by  the  English  government  upon  the 
colonies  at  an  early  date.  It  was  the  first  scheme  introduced 
by  the  Crown  to  raise  money  in  the  provinces  for  the  con- 
duct of  border  warfare.  A  royal  requisition  to  each  Gov- 
ernor prescribed  the  quota  of  men  and  supplies  expected. 
The  system  was  obnoxious  to  the  colonies,  and  especially  to 
Maryland,  for  the  charter  of  the  latter  contained  ample  pro- 
visions against  royal  interference  with  the  autonomy  of  the 
province.     Requisitions  were  sent  to  Maryland  as  early  as 

1  Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  397. 


62         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [368 

1694,  but,  despite  their  imperative  character,  they  were  com- 
monly received  with  indifference  and  met  a  dogged  resistance. 
Maryland  held  that  "  no  taxes  or  imposition  of  any  kind  could 
be  laid  without  the  assent  of  the  General  Assembly,"  and  the 
Assembly  endeavored  to  prevent  any  infraction  of  this  char- 
tered privilege.1  Even  during  the  suspension  of  Proprietary 
government  (1689-1715)  the  Royal  government  only  obtained 
its  levies  with  the  consent  of  the  Assembly.  Maryland  pur- 
sued the  same  policy  during  the  French  and  Indian  War,  as 
we  have  seen.  The  plan  for  a  general  union  of  his  Majesty's 
northern  colonies  for  defense  and  the  "common  fund" 
had  both  failed.  Brad  dock's  requisitions  were  treated  with 
contempt,  and  he  not  only  received  but  little  assistance  from 
Maryland  and  Pennsylvania,  but  was  hampered  by  them 
besides.  Maryland  failed  to  support  properly  the  small  com- 
pany furnished  for  his  expedition,2  and  repeated  mutterings 
of  discontent  were  heard  from  the  people  and  in  the  Assem- 
bly against  Braddock's  troops  for  their  unscrupulous  conduct 
in  appropriating  at  will  large  numbers  of  servants,  carriages 
and  horses.  Some  of  the  governors  applied  to  England  for 
an  act  of  Parliament  to  compel  the  colonies  to  contribute 
their  quotas,  and  Calvert,  Baltimore's  secretary,  wrote  Sharpe 
the  warning :  "  it  wod  be  Best  the  Americans  did  not  Subject 
themselves  to  Tax  from  hence  "3 — a  threat  rash  and  unheeded, 
as  subsequent  history  proves.  Governor  Sharpe  again  brought 
forward  his  pet  idea  of  a  general  poll-tax  enforced  by  Par- 
liament, for  he  was  convinced  that  nothing  but  a  compulsory 
act  by  Parliament  could  "  effectually  preserve  the  Colonies 
from  ruin."4  While  the  disputes  with  the  Proprietary 
explain  largely  the  apathy  in  Maryland  toward  the  mother- 
country,  it  does  not  account  for  it  fully.     The  province  was 

1  As  early  as  1698  Maryland  maintained  that  no  law  of  England  should 
be  binding  upon  them  without  their  consent. 

2  Sharpe  advanced  £100  from  his  own  pocket  for  the  purpose.     Sharpe 
Cor.,  I.,  245. 

8SharpeCor.,  I.,  135. 
4  Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  85-86. 


369]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         63 

always  jealous  of  her  rights,  and  the  charter  was  the  standard 
by  which  she  measured  her  independence  of  England.  Mary- 
land enjoyed  most  of  the  privileges  of  a  sovereign  state  and 
acted  accordingly.  It  is  evident  from  the  legislation  of  the 
House  of  Commons  that  Parliament  was  much  incensed  at 
the  behavior  of  Maryland.  In  1756  (February  3)  a  grant 
of  £95,000  was  made  to  the  "  Plantations  in  North  America ; " 
but  in  the  distribution,  Virginia,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania 
and  the  two  Carolinas  were  excluded  the  benefit.  Calvert 
gave  the  reason  to  Sharpe  in  these  words  :  "  The  Construc- 
tion had  and  held  of  them  Province  is,  they  have  faiPd  of 
that  just  regard  and  not  complying  to  his  Majesty's  Secy  of 
State,  therefore  the  Legislature  here  think  them  at  present 
not  of  notice  to  His  Majesty." *  Furthermore,  Lord  Lou- 
don, when  he  became  commander-in-chief  of  the  American 
forces  (1756-1758),  was  not  able  to  command  the  respect  and 
obedience  of  Maryland's  Assembly.  They  did  not  listen  to 
his  requisitions  and  scorned  all  dictation.  Contrary  to  his 
orders,  they  resolved  to  withdraw  the  garrison  from  Fort 
Cumberland,  on  the  frontier  of  the  province,  and  reduce 
their  force  to  300  men ;  at  the  same  time  they  refused  to 
allow  any  Maryland  troops  to  leave  the  province  under  his 
command  except  they  be  in  his  pay.  By  such  legislation 
the  frontier  was  left  ill-protected,  and  the  province  would 
have  been  in  great  danger  had  the  French  at  Fort  Duquesne 
manifested  any  activity. 

With  the  accession  of  the  Pitt  ministry  in  England  in 
1758,  and  the  appointment  of  Amherst  to  the  command 
of  the  British  forces  in  America,  the  tide  turned.  General 
Forbes  was  placed  in  charge  of  an  expedition  against 
Fort  Duquesne,  with  instructions  to  secure  the  active  cooper- 
ation of  the  Southern  colonies.  But  the  attitude  of  the 
Assembly  reflects  great  discredit  upon  the  province.  They 
had  refused  to  maintain  the  garrison  at  Fort  Cumberland, 
and  the  troops,  having  been  without  pay  for  eight  months, 

1  Quoted  as  it  stands  in  the  Records.     Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  370. 


64         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [370 

or  not  having  "fingered  any  money,"  as  Sharpe  put  it, 
were  on  the  point  of  disbanding.  In  order  to  keep  this 
force  together  until  the  close  of  the  campaign  General 
Forbes  was  obliged  to  take  the  300  men  stationed  at  Fort 
Cumberland  and  Fort  Frederick  into  his  own  pay  and 
advance  £1500  for  their  support  upon  the  credit  of  the 
province.  In  this  way  they  were  kept  from  starving  and 
remained  a  part  of  Forbes's  army  until  Fort  Duquesne  was 
reclaimed.1 

After  much  persuasion  the  Assembly  promised  to  reim- 
burse Forbes  for  his  advances,  but  this  resolution  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  fulfilled.  Upon  the  occupation  of  Fort 
Duquesne  warfare  in  the  south  was  practically  over,  and 
General  Amherst,  with  his  aides,  Generals  Johnson  and 
Wolfe,  conducted  the  war  to  a  successful  close  in  the  north  ; 
Canada  was  captured  by  the  British,  but  without  any  assist- 
ance from  Maryland.  The  entreaties  of  Pitt  and  Amherst 
were  of  no  avail,  and  Sharpe  had  .to  resign  himself  to  the 
consciousness  that  the  Assembly  must  be  left  to  its  own 
course. 

The  treatment  of  Roman  Catholics  is  an  unsavory  sub- 
ject in  Maryland  history.  During  the  French  and  Indian 
War  the  persecution  of  this  portion  of  the  population  con- 
tinued. Every  possible  pretext  for  bringing  in  bills  to  re- 
strict their  liberties  and  "  prevent  the  growth  of  Popery  " 
seems  to  have  been  seized  upon.  Fortunately,  however, 
many  of  these  bills  never  got  beyond  the  journals  of  the 
Lower  House.  If  perchance  a  person  of  this  faith  had 
secured  an  appointment  to  a  responsible  position  a  protest 
would  be  made  "against  favors  shown  to  Catholics." 
Charges  were  made  that  they  were  in  collusion  with  the 
French,  but  most  of  these  charges,  happily,  proved  to  be 
malicious  lies  concocted  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  pre- 
judice against  the  Roman  Catholics.  So  strong  was  the  sen- 
timent against  them  that  members  of  the  Assembly  failed  of 

1  Nov.  25,  1758. 


371]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         65 

reelection  on  account  of  their  opposition  to  bills  affecting  the 
Catholics.  In  response  to  the  petitions  of  the  Lower  House 
Sharpe  pronounced  their  behavior  "  unexceptionable  "  and  said 
it  would  be  hard  to  take  any  measures  that  might  be  called 
persecution.1 

In  1756,  when  the  vote  of  £40,000  was  passed,  a  double 
tax  was  placed  upon  the  lands  of  all  Roman  Catholics ;  to 
this  there  was  little  objection  on  the  part  of  the  administra- 
tion, for  the  reason  that  Catholics  were  excused  from  attend- 
ing "Musters  as  Militia."2  Their  petitions  to  Sharpe  to 
veto  the  bill  and  their  threats  to  appeal  to  the  King  in 
Council  had  no  effect.  Governor  Sharpe,  though  he  con- 
fessed that  he  did  not  think  it  so  great  an  injustice,  would 
have  prevented  the  double  taxation  if  he  had  been  able.  In 
the  same  year  in  which  the  double  taxation  was  imposed  it 
was  even  proposed  in  the  Assembly  to  disarm  all  Roman 
Catholics  in  the  province,  and  the  opposition  to  this  obnox- 
ious measure  only  prevailed  by  a  slender  majority  of  one.3 
Sharpe's  conduct  is  to  be  highly  commended,  for  though  a 
Protestant  he  never  allowed  himself  to  be  carried  away  by 
the  intolerant  spirit  that  prevailed.  The  Governor  defended 
himself  against  all  charges  of  favoritism  in  a  frank  and  com- 
mendable manner,  conscientiously  opposed  all  attempts  of 
the  Assembly  to  persecute  the  Catholics,  and  refused  to 
sanction  any  acts  affecting  them  which  were  unreasonably 
severe.  Yet,  withal,  we  find  no  disloyalty  among  the  Cath- 
olics. Rather  is  their  treatment  a  reflection  of  the  character 
of  the  Assembly  itself  and  an  indication  of  the  general 
apathy  that  prevailed  in  the  province  in  regard  to  the  issue 
of  the  struggle  for  Canada.  Instead  of  spending  all  its 
energy  to  restore  the  security  and  dignity  of  Maryland,  the 
Assembly  wasted  much  of  its  valuable  time  in  false  charges 

1  Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  408.  Sharpe,  though  a  Protestant  himself,  said  that 
they  were  really  better  than  the  Protestants. 

2  Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  419-20. 

3 The  vote  stood  19  to  18.    Assem.  Proc,  Sept.,  1756. 


66         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [372 

and  in  the  passing  of  laws  against  the  "  Papists,"  attempting 
to  make  them,  as  it  were,  a  subterfuge  to  shield  its  own  in- 
activity. We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  that  Sharpe,  as 
did  others,  harped  incessantly  upon  the  idea  of  an  act  of 
Parliament  to  compel  the  colonies,  in  particular  Maryland 
and  Pennsylvania,  to  help  themselves.  General  Forbes's 
admonition,  "  Great  Britain  will  not  be  blind  to  their  Be- 
haviour .  .  .  on  this  occasion,"  was  verified  in  1765.  When, 
in  1766,  Maryland  was  called  to  account  by  the  House 
of  Commons,  the  task  of  defending  her  conduct  fell  upon 
Franklin,  who  explained  it  away  as  best  he  could.1 

Opposition  to  Proprietary  rule  existed  from  the  very  begin- 
ning of  the  province.  The  people  at  the  start  took  the  law- 
making power  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Proprietor,  to  whom  it 
was  given  by  the  charter ;  the  wisdom  of  the  first  Proprietor 
made  him  yield  to  a  compromise  that  was  unavoidable.  This 
attitude  of  the  Assembly  developed  by  1739  aa  Political 
Faction,"  which  opposed  the  Administration  in  everything. 
The  Assembly  of  that  year  may  be  truly  called  an  Assembly 
of  grievances. 

From  henceforward,  "no  Supplies  without  redress  of 
grievances  "  became  the  rallying  principle,  and  the  French 
and  Indian  War  gave  them  a  glorious  opportunity  to  enforce 
this  principle  and  extend  their  encroachments  upon  his 
lordship's  prerogatives.  The  Assembly,  however,  carried 
their  disputes  to  an  extreme  not  warranted  by  the  griev- 
ances themselves,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  quarrels  over  the 
port  duty  and  the  tobacco  tax.  Many  of  the  burgesses  seem 
to  have  lost  their  heads  and  to  have  exhausted  their  powers 
of  logic  in  their  attempts  to  right  fancied  wrongs.  Again,  in 
the  paper  money  controversy  they  took  a  weak  stand,  and  if 
the  Assembly  had  been  given  a  free  rein  it  would  have 
greatly  depreciated  the  currency  of  the  province.     Subservi- 

1  Franklin  took  the  view  that  Maryland's  backwardness  was  the  fault 
of  her  government  and  not  of  her  people.  Franklin's  Works,  III.,  pp. 
425-6  (Bigelow'sed.). 


373]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         67 

ence  to  the  example  set  by  Pennsylvania,  permitting  the 
people  of  the  frontier  to  suffer  from  constant  depredations, 
allowing  the  troops  to  starve  without  more  effective  measures 
of  assistance,  were  evidences  of  an  attitude  on  the  part  of 
the  Assembly  far  from  commendable,  and  Maryland  was 
justly  called  to  account  for  perverting  such  an  opportunity  to 
the  attainment  of  selfish  and  ambitious  ends. 

Something  can  be  said,  however,  in  favor  of  the  indepen- 
dent attitude  of  Maryland's  Assembly.  Frederick  Calvert's 
imbecile  conduct  proved  him  a  man  unfit  to  rule  a  great 
province.  The  Assembly  had  acquired  large  privileges  which 
by  the  charter  belonged  originally  to  the  Proprietor.  Pos- 
sibly these  were  gained  more  by  force  than  by  right,  but  it 
meant  to  retain  them  forever.  Out  of  feudal  elements  had 
developed  a  government  by  the  people  too  dear  to  English 
ideas  of  independence  to  be  relinquished. 

Consequently  when  Frederick  began  to  interfere  with  these 
acquired  rights  of  the  province  he  was  unconscious,  or  if 
conscious,  indifferent  to  the  mistake  he  was  making.  He 
objected  to  the  appropriation  of  ordinary  licenses  for  the 
expenses  of  the  war,  although  his  predecessor  Charles  had 
readily  assented  to  such  appropriations  for  public  purposes  on 
less  imperative  occasions.  He  instructed  his  Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor to  object  to  the  duty  on  convicts  for  fear  of  a  censure 
from  the  Crown,  although  previous  to  this  the  right  to  pro- 
hibit their  importation  altogether  had  been  recognized  and 
assented  to.  The  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  Assembly's 
taxing  powers,  which  was  dictated  by  a  selfish  regard  for 
his  own  interests,  made  Lord  Baltimore  very  unpopular. 
Furthermore,  his  unwillingness  to  give  the  grievances  of  his 
people  a  fair  hearing,  his  efforts  to  smother  petitions  to  the 
Crown,  aggravated  the  feelings  of  the  provincials  and  made 
them  all  the  more  determined  to  resist  Proprietary  rule.  His 
liberality  was  again  put  to  the  test  in  1756  when  the 
Assembly  proposed  to  tax  his  estates ;  the  result  we  have 
already   seen.     Maryland  was   less   radical   than    Pennsyl- 


68         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [374 

vania,  and  had  Frederick  even  manifested  the  liberality  of 
the  Penns  he  might  have  saved  his  estates.  He  was  a  heavy 
loser  by  the  war,  as  Sharpe  constantly  pointed  out  to  him, 
and  economy  as  well  as  justice  seemed  to  dictate  a  generous 
policy.  But  here  the  Proprietary  was  at  fault  again,  and  the 
Assembly  persisted  in  its  schemes. 

The  design  of  the  Assembly  was  to  limit  the  authority  of 
the  Proprietary  in  the  province  and  transfer  it  to  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people.  And  Governor  Sharpe  says  of  the 
legislation  of  the  Lower  House  that  it  "  manifestly  tended  to 
deprive  the  Government  of  all  Power  and  to  throw  it  entirely 
into  the  hands  of  the  People  as  it  is  in  Pensilvania." 1  This 
spirit  of  aggression  was  not  new  ;  it  had  only  been  intensified 
by  the  indifferent  conduct  of  their  Proprietor.  Why  did 
Frederick  not  visit  his  province  nor  concern  himself  about 
its  difficulties,  nor  inquire  as  to  whether  or  not  the  province 
was  able  or  ought  to  bear  alone  the  burden  of  protecting 
his  property  ?  It  was  because  he  cared  so  little  for  it.  Is 
it  any  wonder,  therefore,  that  "  the  Lower  House,"  as  Sharpe 
says,  "  seemed  to  be  determined  to  grant  no  Supplies  unless 
they  could  at  the  same  time  carry  certain  points  which 
tended  to  subvert  in  a  great  measure  the  Constitution."2 
No  doubt  Governor  Sharpens  pet  term  for  the  Lower  House 
— "a  Levelling  House  of  Burgesses" — is  an  apt  one,  for 
they  were  scheming  to  belittle  and  perhaps  overthrow  their 
Proprietary  government.  Frederick's  policy  was  calculated 
to  help  rather  than  hinder  this  design;  it  created  discord 
which  might  have  been  avoided,  and  invited  the  interference 
of  the  English  Crown  in  the  affairs  of  the  province. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  intention  of  some  of  the  leading 
men  of  the  Assembly  to  play  the  colony  into  the  hands  of 
the  Crown.  The  object  for  doing  such  a  thing  may  be 
surmised ;  under  Royal  government  the  Assembly  anticipated 
a  monopoly  of  the  provincial  administration.  The  events  of 
the  next  few  years  show  their  mistake. 

Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  177. 
8 Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  391. 


375]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.        69 

Of  the  indications  that  point  to  such  a  design  several  are 
important.  Doubtless  the  remembrance  of  the  Royal  govern- 
ment in  1715  was  still  fresh  in  mind,  and  the  Assembly 
thought  the  Crown  a  safe  retreat  from  the  rule  of  the  Pro- 
prietary. We  have  already  seen  what  an  effort  the  Lower 
House  made  in  1739  to  petition  the  king  to  redress  their 
grievances.  .Again,  in  1756,  the  Assembly  attempted  to  have 
their  grievances  brought  before  the  King  in  Council,  and 
desired  an  agent  in  London  to  represent  them.  Lord  Bal- 
timore did  his  utmost  to  repress  anything  of  this  sort,  for 
fear  that  it  "  would  plunge  him  into  a  Sea  of  Trouble."1  This 
opposition  increased  their  hostility  towards  Proprietary  gov- 
ernment. 

It  was  Sharpens  belief  that  it  was  the  object  of  the  leading 
men  of  the  Assembly  "  to  throw  things  into  confusion  "  and 
thus  exempt  themselves  and  their  constituents  from  all 
taxes.  Beyond  a  doubt  there  was  a  strong  desire  on  the 
part  of  many  to  bring  about  some  interference  on  the  part 
of  the  Crown  which  would  be  disagreeable  to  the  Proprie- 
tary. Many  supply  bills  were  framed  by  the  Lower  House 
u  to  save  appearances n  and  throw  the  odium  of  rejecting 
them  upon  the  administration,  thereby  making  it  appear,  to 
use  the  Governor's  words,  "that  it  is  entirely  owing  to  the 
Government  of  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania  being  in  the 
hands  of  Proprietors  that  money  for  His  Majesty's  Service 
is  not  so  readily  granted  in  these  Provinces  as  in  other  Col- 
onies."2 Notwithstanding  Sharpe's  prediction  of  the  ap- 
proaching fulfillment  of  the  proverb  "  which  tells  us  that 
after  a  Storm  cometh  a  Calm,"  the  Lord  Proprietary  was 
dubious  of  the  attitude  of  the  Assembly  toward  him.  This 
is  clearly  evinced  by  the  base  scheme  which  Calvert  now 
proposed  to  Sharpe. 

It  was  a  design  for  bribing  the  Assembly,  his  plan  being 
to  repress  a  "Turbulent  and  Malevolent  Spirit  in  the  Lower 

Sharpe  Cor.,  I.,  401. 
2  Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  179. 


70         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.     [376 

House  of  the  Assembly."  After  advising  Sharpe  to  be 
careful  of  his  appointments  to  the  Council,  the  "chief 
strength  and  support  of  his  Lordship's  rights,"  he  explains 
that  nineteen  out  of  twenty  of  the  Representatives  of  the 
people  consult  their  own  interests  ;  "  therefore  by  throwing 
out  a  Sop  in  a  proper  manner  to  these  noisy  animals  it  will 
render  them  not  only  silent,  but  tame  enough  to  bear  strok- 
ing and  tractable  enough  to  follow  any  directions  that  may 
be  thought  fit  to  be  given  to  them." 

Calvert's  scheme  was  not  to  bribe  the  leaders  but  to  buy 
off  their  followers.  It  is  briefly  as  follows  :  Of  the  fifty- 
eight  members  of  the  House  he  would  find  "  baits  "  for 
thirty.  These  "  baits  "  were  to  be  offices  in  the  gift  of  the 
Administration,  as  the  fourteen  sheriffs'  places,  and  others. 
At  the  beginning  of  each  Assembly,  which  continued  for 
three  years,  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  House  were 
to  be  quietly  promised  an  office  on  the  expiration  of  their 
terms,  provided  they  were  favorably  disposed  toward  the 
Proprietary  and  voted  as  the  Administration  dictated.  By 
such  a  plan  the  Proprietary  government  hoped  to  silence 
"  the  pretended  patriotic  Spirit  and  clamour  of  the  Lower 
House,  and  secure  the  harmonious  working  of  the  various 
branches  of  the  Provincial  Government  like  unto  the  wheels 
of  a  clock."  Numerous  details  are  prescribed  in  Calvert's 
letter1  for  the  perfecting  of  his  scheme.  The  essence  of  it 
only  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  that  is,  to  reflect  the  char- 
acter of  the  Proprietary  at  this  time.  Governor  Sharpe's 
reply  to  this  proposition  illustrates  well  the  integrity  and 
firmness  of  a  man  who  has  been  much  misrepresented. 
While  admitting  it  to  be  good  policy  to  reward  those  who 
manifested  a  good  disposition  toward  the  government,  he 
proves  the  utter  impracticability  of  the  scheme  proposed. 
"  Scarcely  a  member  in  the  House,"  says    the    Governor, 

!A  secret  letter  from  Calvert  to  Sharpe.     Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  375-380 
(from  the  Calvert  Papers). 


377]      Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         71 

"  would  thank  me  for  bestowing  such  Offices  on  themselves  or 
their  Friends  even  without  its  being  made  a  Condition  that 
they  should  .  .  .  give  only  one  Vote  contrary  to  their  In- 
clinations." The  attempt  to  execute  such  a  design  would 
have  rendered  the  Proprietary  government  more  odious 
to  the  people  than  ever,  and  the  enemies  of  the  govern- 
ment would  have  prevented  it  by  legislation,  though  it  is 
exceedingly  doubtful  if  any  of  the  members  could  have 
been  ensnared  into  sacrificing  their  popularity  and  repu- 
tations for  any  such  consideration.  Never,  probably,  in 
the  history  of  the  province  was  a  more  foolish  suggestion 
made  to  its  Governor.  Sharpe  makes  this  very  plain  to 
Frederick's  secretary,  and  takes  the  opportunity  of  observ- 
ing again  that  too  much  dictation  on  the  part  of  the  Pro- 
prietary and  his  friends  in  the  matter  of  appointments 
had  already  greatly  handicapped  his  administration.1  The 
moral  rebuke  which  Sharpe  administers  to  Calvert  is  well 
worth  quoting :  "  The  only  way  .  .  .  for  His  Ldp  to 
obtain  a  solid  and  lasting  Influence  ...  is  to  appear 
steady  and  resolute,  to  reward  as  far  .  .  .  as  it  is  in  his 
Power  those  who  behave  themselves  well,  but  never  bribe 
any  of  those  who  endeavour  to  carry  their  Points  by 
Violence  to  desist  or  forbear  ;  Let  His  Ldp  and  those  in 
Authority  under  him  pursue  such  Measures  as  they  will 
always  be  able  to  justify  and  in  the  End  I  will  engage  that 
a  vast  Majority  of  the  Upper  Class  of  People  will  become 
Friends  to  His  Ldp  and  well  wishers  to  his  Govern't."2 
These  indications  point  to  the  fact  that  the  province  was 
seeking,  or  meditating  at  any  rate,  relief  from  Proprietary 
rule.  Had  not  the  cessation  of  hostilities  soon  restored  the 
equilibrium  of  the  governmeut,  it  is  difficult  to  surmise  what 
might  have  happened. 

If  we  look  away  to  Pennsylvania  at  this  time  we  find  a 
very  similar  state  of  affairs.     In  responding  to  appeals  for 

Sharpe  Cor.,  II.,  426-431. 
2 Sharpe  Cor.,  II., 430. 


72         Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.      [378 

supplies  the  Assembly  continued  to  tax  the  estates  of  the 
Proprietaries.  This  called  forth  renewed  opposition  from  the 
latter,  and  the  people  became  so  highly  incensed  that  steps 
were  taken  to  do  away  with  the  Proprietary  government. 
It  was  determined  to  petition  the  Crown  to  purchase  the 
province  from  the  Proprietors  and  make  it  a  Crown  colony. 
Franklin  was  again  appointed  the  provincial  agent  to  convey 
the  petition  and  urge  the  measure  before  the  Ministry  in 
London.  With  that  object  in  view  he  sailed  for  England, 
November,  1764.  The  rupture  with  Great  Britain,  however, 
culminating  the  next  year  in  the  Stamp  Act,  soon  subordi- 
nated all  other  questions,  and  Franklin  exercised  an  influence 
little  anticipated,  becoming  not  merely  the  agent  of  his  own 
province,  Pennsylvania,  but  really  the  representative  and 
defender  of  all  the  colonies. 

Though  Maryland  did  not  go  so  far  as  Pennsylvania,  and 
indeed  had  little  occasion  to,  yet  the  applause  given  to  the 
acts  of  her  sister  province  indicates  that  very  little  interfer- 
ence would  have  been  sufficient  to  drive  her  to  a  similar 
step. 

Down  to  this  time  there  had  been  no  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  colonies  for  union  or  independence  of  England,  and  there 
was  no  concerted  action  before  1765  for  such  a  purpose.  The 
colonies  were  at  variance  in  their  government,  and  the  long 
distances  between  centers  of  population  had  prevented  much 
intercommunication.  All  unity  of  action  was  merely  sympa- 
thetic cooperation  for  defense.  Indeed,  the  colonies  had  no 
grievances  against  the  English  Crown  except  the  Navigation 
Acts.  Maryland,  in  fact,  did  not  come  into  contact  with  the 
Crown,  for  the  latter  had  no  taxing  power  over  the  province. 
The  provincials  were  so  pleased  with  the  overlordship  of  the 
Crown  that  they  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  Mary- 
land would  be  better  off  as  a  Royal  colony  than  as  a  Pro- 
prietary colony.  The  Assembly's  reception  of  the  report  of 
Maryland's  two  commissioners  to  the  Albany  Convention 
was  significant:  "  We  do  not  conceive  those  Gentlemen  were 


379]     Maryland's  Attitude  in  the  Struggle  for  Canada.         73 

intended  or  impowered  to  agree  upon  any  Plan  of  a  proposed 
Union  of  the  several  Colonies  ...  of  which  one  General 
Government  may  be  formed  in  America  ".  .  .  . 

After  the  close  of  the  French  and  Indian  War  Great 
Britain's  oppression  changed  entirely  the  phase  of  colonial 
affairs.  The  Stamp  Act  was  the  first  direct  menace  of  the 
liberties  of  the  colonies.  Aside  from  mere  economical  con- 
siderations, Great  Britain  doubtless  had  strong  motives  for 
the  passage  of  such  an  act, — a  desire  to  revenge  the  tardiness 
of  the  colonies  in  the  late  war  and  to  remind  them  of  her 
supremacy  over  them ;  but  it  was  soon  seen  that  the  minis- 
ters who  had  favored  such  measures  had  made  a  mistake  and 
an  undue  assertion  of  authority.  Union  was  now  felt  to  be 
a  necessity  for  the  preservation  of  their  liberties.  All  other 
disputes  and  grievances  were  laid  aside  for  the  time;  the 
provincials  united  for  resistance,  and  Franklin  was  put  on 
the  defensive  in  London.  The  French  and  Indian  War  had 
been  a  general  preparation,  and  the  provinces,  despite  the 
backwardness  of  many  of  them,  had  at  least  learned  the  lesson 
that  cooperation  was  necessary  in  all  international  struggles, 
and  the  only  effective  method  of  opposing  dangers  which 
threatened  all  alike. 

Maryland  had  learned  the  lesson  too,  and  manifested  her 
willingness  to  unite  with  her  sister  colonies  at  this  momen- 
tous period.  The  province  had  developed  a  spirit  of  aggres- 
sion and  resistance  to  Proprietary  rule.  We  have  seen  how 
jealously  the  Assembly  guarded  the  revenues  of  the  province, 
and  how  they  opposed  all  attempts  of  the  Proprietary  to 
infringe  their  taxing  powers  when  once  acquired.  Similar 
attempts  by  Parliament  to  interfere  with  the  "  franchises  " 
and  "  liberties "  of  the  colonies  finally  led  to  their  inde- 
pendence. 

%-*()*  THE        V 

falnvBRSITT 


dZlFVtf 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS, 

BALTIMORE. 


I.  American    Journal    of    Mathematics.      S.   Newcomb,   Editor,    and     T. 

Craig,  Associate  Editor.     Quarterly.    4to.    Volume  XIV  in  progress.    $5 
per  annum. 

II.  American  Chemical  Journal.  I.  Remsen,  Editor.  8  nos.  yearly.  8vo. 
Volume  XIV  in  progress.    $4  per  volume. 

III.  American  Journal  of  Philology.  B.  L.  Gildersleeve,  Editor. 
Quarterly.     8vo.     Volume  XIII  in  progress.     $3  per  volume. 

IV.  Studies  from  the  Biological  Laboratory.  H.  N.  Martin,  Editor,  and 
W.  K.  Brooks,  Associate  Editor.  8vo.  Volume  V  in  progress.  $5  per 
volume. 

V.  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.  H.  B.  Adams,  Editor. 
Monthly.    8vo.     Vol.  X  in  progress.     $3  per  volume. 

VI.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars.  4to.  Volume  XI  in  progress. 
$1  per  year. 

VII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin.  4to.  Monthly.  Volume  III  in 
progress.     $1  per  year. 

VIII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.  4to.  Volume  III  in  progress.  $5 
per  volume. 

IX.  Contributions  to  Assyriology,  etc.     Vol.  I  ready.     $8. 

X.  Annual  Report  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Presented  by  the 
President  to  the  Board  of  Trustees. 

XI.  Annual  Register  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Giving  the  list  of 
officers  and  students,  and  stating  the  regulations,  etc.  Published  at  the 
close  of  the  academic  year. 


Rowland's  Photograph  op  the  Normal  Solar  Spectrum.    New  edition  now 

ready.    Set  of  ten  plates,  mounted.    $20. 
The  Oyster.    By  William  K.  Brooks.    240  pp.  12mo. ;  14  plates.    $1.00. 
The  Teaching  op  the  Apostles   (complete  facsimile  edition).    J.  Rendel 

Harris,  Editor.     110  pp.  and  10  plates.     4to.     $5.00,  cloth. 
Observations  on  the  Embryology  op  Insects  and  Arachnids.    By  Adam  T. 

Bruce.    46  pp.  and  7  plates.    4to.    $3.00,  cloth. 
Selected  Morphological  Monographs.     W.  K.   Brooks,  Editor.    Vol.  I. 

370  pp.  and  51  plates.     4to.     $7.50,  cloth. 
Reproduction  in  Phototype  op  a  Syriac  MS.  with  the  Antilegomena 

Epistles.    I.  H.  Hall,  Editor.     $3.00,  paper  ;  $4.00,  cloth. 
Studies  in  Logic.    By  members  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.    C.  S. 

Peirce,  Editor.     123  pp.  12mo.    $2.00,  cloth. 
New  Testament  Autographs.    By  J.  Rendel  Harris.    54  pp.  8vo ;  4  plates. 

50  cents. 
The  Constitution  op  Japan,  with  Speeches,  etc.,  illustrating  its  significance. 

48  pp.  16mo.     50  cents. 
Essays  and  Studies.    By  Basil  L.  Gildersleeve.    520  pp.  small  4to.    $3.50, 

cloth. 


A  full  list  of  publications  will  be  sent  on  application. 
Communications  in  respect  to  exchanges  and  remittances  may  be  sent 
to  The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 


fHE 


UjRIEDENWALD 


E^INHUNG, 


LfUFHOG^APHING, 


05OOD  €ngi^aving, 


Boo^  Binding. 


altimope,  ^utaw  and  (§^epman  <3>ts. 


JE>al>ti^oi^e,  JAtz. 


tf he  Leading  Jiouse  of  the  £rt  Preservative  in  Baltimore. 


Printers  of  The  American  Journal  of  Philology,  American 

Chemical  Journal,  American  Journal  of  Mathematics, 

Studies  from  the  Biological  Laboratory,  Studies 

in  Historical  and  Political  Science,  issued 

by   the    Johns    Hopkins    University. 


ESTIMATES  CHEERFULLY  SUBMITTED. 


PERIODICALS  PUBLISHED  BY 

FELIX    ALCAN 

108  BOULEVARD  SAIXT-GERMAI\, 

PARIS. 


Revue  Historique. 

Edited  by  M.  G.  MONOD,  Lecturer  at  the  Ecole  Normale  Sup6rieure,  Adjunct  Director 
of  the  Ecole  des  Hautes  Etudes. 

17th  Year,  1892. 

The  "Revue  Historique"  appears  bi-monthly,  making  at  the  end  of  the  year  three 
volumes  of  500  pages  each. 

Each  number  contains:  I.  Several  leading  articles,  including,  if  possible,  a  complete 
thesis.  II.  Miscellanies,  composed  of  unpublished  documents,  short  notices  on  curious 
historical  points.  III.  Historical  reports,  furnishing  information,  as  complete  as  possible, 
touching  the  progress  of  historical  studies.  IV.  An  analysis  of  periodicals  of  France  and 
foreign  countries,  from  the  standpoint  of  historical  studies.  V.  Critical  reports  of  new 
historical  works. 

By  original  memoirs  in  each  number,  signed  with  the  names  of  authorities  in  the 
science,  and  by  reports,  accounts,  chronicles  and  analysis  of  periodicals,  this  Review 
furnishes  information  regarding  the  historical  movement  as  complete  as  is  to  be  found  in 
any  similar  review. 

Earlier  series  are  sold  separately  for  30  frs.,  single  number  for  6  frs.,  numbers  of  the 
first  year  are  sold  for  9  frs. 

Price  of  subscription,  in  Postal  Union,  33  frs. 


Annates  de  I'Ecole  Libre  des  Sciences  Politiques. 

Published  tri-monthly  by  the  cooperation  of  Professors  and  Former  Pupils  of  the  College. 
7th.  Tear,  1893. 

Committee  of  publication:  MM.  Boutmy,  Director  of  the  College;  LiON  SAY,  Member  of 
the  Academie  Frangaise,  formerly  Minister  of  Finance ;  A.  DE  Foville,  Professor  at  the 
Conservatory  of  Arts  and  Trades,  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  in  the  Ministry  of 
Finance  (Treasury  Department);  R.  Stoubm,  formerly  Inspector  of  the  Finances  and 
Administrator  of  Indirect  Taxes;  AUG.  Abnaune;  A.  Ribot,  Deputy;  Gabbiel  Alix;  L. 
Renault,  Professor  at  the  Law  College  of  Paris ;  Andk^  Lebon,  Chief  of  the  Cabinet  of 
the  President  of  the  Senate ;  Albebt  Soeel  ;  Pigeonneau,  Substitute  Professor  at  the 
College  de  Paris ;  A.  Vandal,  Auditor  of  the  First  Class. 

The  subjects  treated  include  the  whole  field  covered  by  the  programme  of  instruction : 
Political  Economy,  Finance,  Statistics,  Constitutional  History,  Public  and  Private  Inter- 
national Law,  Law  of  Administration,  Comparative  Civil  and  Commercial  Legislation, 
Legislative  and  Parliamentary  History,  Diplomatic  History,  Economic  Geography,  Ethno- 
graphy. The  Annals  besides  contain  Bibliographical  Notices  and  Foreign  Correspondence. 

Subscription  in  Postal  Union,  19  frs. 


Revue  Phiiosophique  de  la  France  et  de  I'Etranger. 

Edited  by  TH.  RiBOT,  Professor  at  the  College  of  France. 
17th  Year,  1892. 

The  "  Revue  Phiiosophique  "  appears  monthly,  and  makes  at  the  end  of  each  year  two 
volumes  of  about  680  pages  each. 

Each  number  of  the  "  Revue  "  contains :  1.  Essays.  2.  Accounts  of  new  philosophical 
publications,  French  and  foreign.  3.  Complete  accounts  of  periodicals  of  foreign  coun- 
tries as  far  as  they  concern  philosophy.  4.  Notes,  documents,  observations.  The  earlier 
series  are  sold  separately  at  30  frs.,  and  at  3  frs.  by  number.  In  Postal  Union,  33  frs.  Sub- 
scriptions to  be  paid  in  advance. 


Payment  may  be  for  the  periodicals  through  postal  orders.    The  publisher  will  allow 
all  expenses  for  money  orders  to  be  charged  to  him. 


The  American  Journal  of  Archeology 


AND   OF  THE 


HISTOEY  OF  THE  FINE  AETS. 


The  Journal  is  the  organ  of  the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America  and  of  the 
American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at  Athens,  and  it  will  aim  to  further  the 
interests  for  which  the  Institute  and  the  School  were  founded.  It  treats  of  all 
branches  of  Archaeology  and  Art  History:  Oriental,  Classical,  Early  Christian, 
Mediaeval  and  American.  It  is  intended  to  supply  a  record  of  the  important  work 
done  in  the  field  of  Archaeology,  under  the  following  categories :  I.  Original  Articles  ; 
II.  Correspondence  from  European  Archaeologists ;  III.  Reviews  of  Books ;  IV. 
Archaeological  News,  presenting  a  careful  and  ample  record  of  discoveries  and  in- 
vestigations in  all  parts  of  the  world ;  V.  Summaries  of  the  contents  of  the  principal 
archaeological  periodicals. 

The  Journal  is  published  quarterly,  and  forms  a  yearly  volume  of  about  500  pages 
royal  8vo,  with  colored,  heliotype  and  other  plates,  and  numerous  figures,  at  the  sub- 
scription price  of  $5.00.    Six  volumes  have  been  published. 

It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  editors  that  the  Journal,  beside  giving  a  survey  of  the 
whole  field  of  Archaeology,  should  be  international  in  character,  by  affording  to  the 
leading  archaeologists  of  all  countries  a  common  medium  for  the  publication  of  the 
results  of  their  labors.  This  object  has  been  in  great  part  attained,  as  is  shown  by 
the  list  of  eminent  foreign  and  American  contributors  to  the  three  volumes  already 
issued,  and  by  the  character  of  articles  and  correspondence  published.  Not  only 
have  important  contributions  to  the  advance  of  the  science  been  made  in  the  original 
articles,  but  the  present  condition  of  research  has  been  brought  before  our  readers 
in  the  departments  of  Correspondence,  and  Reviews  of  the  more  important  recent 
books.  Two  departments  in  which  the  Journal  stands  quite  alone  are  (1)  the  Record 
of  Discoveries,  and  (2)  the  Summaries  of  Periodicals.  In  the  former  a  detailed  account 
is  given  of  all  discoveries  and  excavations  in  every  portion  of  the  civilized  world, 
from  India  to  America,  especial  attention  being  given  to  Greece  and  Italy.  In  order 
to  insure  thoroughness  in  this  work,  more  than  sixty  periodical  publications  are  con- 
sulted, and  material  is  secured  from  special  correspondents. 

In  order  that  readers  should  know  everything  of  importance  that  appears  in 
periodical  literature,  a  considerable  space  has  been  given  to  careful  summaries  of 
the  papers  contained  in  the  principal  periodicals  that  treat  of  Archaeology  and  the 
Fine  Arts.  By  these  various  methods,  all  important  work  done  is  concentrated  and 
made  accessible  in  a  convenient  but  scholarly  form,  equally  suited  to  the  specialist 
and  to  the  general  reader. 

All  literary  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the  managing  editor, 

A.  L.  FROTHINGHAM,  JR., 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

All  business  communications  to  the  publishers, 

GINN  &  COMPANY, 

BOSTON,  MASS. 


Modern  Language  Notes 


A  MONTHLY  PUBLICATION 

With  intermission  from  July  to  October  inclusive. 
DEVOTED  TO  THE  INTERESTS 

OF  THE 

ACADEMIC  STUDY  OF  ENGLISH,  GERMAN 

AND  THE 

ROMANCE  LANGUAGES. 


A.  Marshall  Elliott,  Managing  Editor. 

James  W.  Bright,  H.  C.  G.  von  Jagemann,  Henry  Alfred  Todd, 

Associate  Editors. 


This  is  a  successful  and  widely-known  periodical,  managed  by  a  corps  of  professors  and 
instructors  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  with  the  co-operation  of  many  of  the  leading 
college  professors,  in  the  department  of  modern  languages,  throughout  the  country. 
While  undertaking  to  maintain  a  high  critical  and  scientific  standard,  the  new  journal 
will  endeavor  to  engage  the  interest  and  meet  the  wants  of  the  entire  class  of  serious 
and  progressive  modern-language  teachers,  of  whatever  grade.  Since  its  establishment 
in  January,  1886,  the  journal  has  been  repeatedly  enlarged,  and  has  met  with  constantly 
increasing  encouragement  and  success.  The  wide  range  of  its  articles,  original,  critical, 
literary  and  pedagogical,  by  a  number  of  the  foremost  American  (and  European)  scholars, 
has  well  represented  and  recorded  the  recent  progress  of  modern  language  studies,  both 
at  home  and  abroad. 

The  list  of  contributors  to  Modern  Language  Notes,  In  addition  to  the  Editors, 
includes  the  following  names : 

Anderson,  Melville  B.,  State  University  of  Iowa;  Bancroft,  T.  Whiting,  Brown 
University,  R.  I.  •  Baskervill,  W.  M.,  Vanderbilt  University,  Tenn. ;  Bocher,  Ferdinand, 
Harvard  University,  Mass. ;  Bradley,  C.  B.,  University  of  California,  Gal. ;  Brandt,  H.  0. 
G.,  Hamilton  College,  N.  Y. ;  BROWNE,  WM.  Hand,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md. ;  BURN- 
HAM,  Wm.  H.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md. ;  Carpenter,  Wm.  H.,  Columbia  College, 
N.  Y. ;  Cledat,  L.,  Faculty  des  Lettres,  Lyons,  France;  Cohn,  Adolphe,  Harvard  Univer- 
sity, Mass. ;  Cook,  A.  S.,  Yale  University;  CosiJN,  P.  J.,  University  of  Leyden,  Holland; 
Crane,  T.  F.,  Cornell  University,  N.  Y. ;  Davidson,  Thomas,  Orange,  N.  J. ;  Egge,  Albert 
E.,  St.  Olafs  College,  Minn.;  Fay,  E.  A.,  National  Deaf-Mute  College,  Washington,  D.  C; 
Fortier,  Alcee,  Tulane  University,  La.;  Garner,  Samuel,  U.  S.  Naval  Academy; 
Gerber,  A.,  Earlham  College,  Ind. ;  Grandgent,  Charles,  Harvard  University,  Mass. ; 
Gummere,  F.  B.,  The  Swain  Free  School,  Mass. ;  Hart,  J.  M.,  University  of  Cincinnati, 
Ohio;  Hempl,  Geo.,  University  of  Michigan;  Huss,  H.  C.  O.,  Princeton  College,  N.  J. ; 
VON  Jagemann,  H.  C.  G.,  Harvard  University ;  Karsten,  Gustaf,  University  of  Indiana, 
Ind.;  Lang,  Henry  R.,  The  Swain  Free  School,  Mass.;  Learned,  M.  D.,  Johns  Hopkins 
University,  Md. ;  Leyh,  Edw.  F.,  Baltimore,  Md. ;  Lodeman,  A.,  State  Normal  School, 
Mich. ;  Morfill,  W.  R.,  Oxford,  England;  McCabe,  T.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md. ; 
Mcelroy,  John  G.  R.,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Pa. ;  O'Connor,  B.  F.,  Columbia  Col- 
lege, N.  Y. ;  Primer,  Sylvester,  Providence,  R.  I.;  Schele  De  Vere,  M.,  University  of 
Virginia,  Va. ;  Schilling,  Hugo,  Wittenberg  College,  Ohio;  Sheldon,  Edw.  S.,  Harvard 
University,  Mass.;  Shepherd,  H.  E.,  College  of  Charleston,  S.  C. ;  Schmidt,  H.,  Univer- 
sity of  Deseret,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah ;  Sievers,  Eduard,  University  of  TUbingen,  Ger- 
many ;  Smyth,  A.  H.,  High  School  of  Philadephia,  Pa. ;  Stoddard,  Francis  H.,  University 
of  City  of  New  York;  StU*rzinger,  J.  J.,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.;  Thomas,  Calvin, 
University  of  Michigan,  Mich. ;  Walter,  E.  L.,  University  of  Michigan,  Mich. ;  WARREN, 
F.  M.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md. ;  White,  H.  S.,  Cornell  University,  N.  Y. 

Subscription  Price  $1.50  per  Annum,  Payable  in  Advance. 

Foreign  Countries  $1.75  per  Annum. 

Single  Copies  Twenty  Cents.         Specimen  Pages  sent  on  Application. 

Subscriptions,  advertisements  and  all  business  communications  should  be  addressed 
to  the 

MANAGING  EDITOR  OF  MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES, 

Johns  Hopkins  university,  Baltimore,  md. 


American  Economic  Association. 


PUBLICATIONS. 

A  series  of  monographs  on  a  great  variety  of  economic 
subjects,  treated  in  a  scientific  manner  by  authors  well 
known  in  the  line  of  work  they  here  represent. 

Among  the  subjects  presented  are  Cooperation,  Socialism, 
the  Laboring  Classes,  Wages,  Capital,  Money,  Finance, 
Statistics,  Prices,  the  Relation  of  the  State  and  Municipality 
to  Private  Industry  and  various  Public  Works,  the  Railway 
Question,  Road  Legislation,  the  English  Woolen  Industry, 
and  numerous  other  topics  of  a  like  nature. 

The  latest  publication  is  that  for  January,  1892, — Vol. 
VII,  No.  1,— entitled: 

The  Silver  Situation  in  the  United  States. 

By  F.  W.  Taussig,  LL.  B.,  Ph.  D., 

Assistant  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in  Harvard  University 
118  pages,    8vo.    Price,  Seventy-five  cents. 

Six  volumes  of  these  publications,  containing  thirty- six 
numbers,  are  now  complete. 

The  volumes  will  be  sent,  bound  in  cloth,  at  $5  each  ;  any 
two  for  $9  ;  any  three  for  $13  ;  any  four  for  $17  ;  any  five 
for  $21  ;  all  six  for  $25,  and  including  subscription  to  Vol. 
VII,  $29.  Unbound,  $4  per  volume.  A  few  copies  bound 
in  half -morocco  are  offered  at  $5.50  each  ;  any  two  for  $10  ; 
any  three  for  $14.50;  any  four  for  $19.00;  any  five  for 
$23.50  ;  all  six  for  $28. 

Annual  membership  $3  ;  life  membership  $50. 

Orders  and  remittances  should  be  sent  to  the 
Publication  Agent,  American  Economic  Association, 
Baltimore,  Md. 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY.  ECONOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW. 


EDITED  BY 


THE  UNIVERSITY  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE. 


The  monographs  are  chosen  mainly  from  among  the 
doctors'  dissertations  in  Political  Science,  but  are  not 
necessarily  confined  to  these.  Only  those  studies  are 
included  which  form  a  distinct  contribution  to  science 
and  which  are  positive  works  of  original  research.  The 
monographs  are  published  at  irregular  intervals,  but  are 
paged  consecutively  as  well  as  separately,  so  as  to  form 
completed  volumes. 

The  first  four  numbers  in  the  series  are  : 

i.  The  Divorce  Problem— A  Study  in  Statistics.  By 
Walter  F.  Willcox,  Ph.  D.    Price,  50  cents. 

2.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  in  the  United 
States,  from  Colonial  Times  to  the  McKinley  Administra- 
tive Bill.     By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.  D.    Price,  50  cents. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan 
Island.    By  George  Ashton  Black,  Ph.  D.    Price,  50  cents. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts.  By  Charles  H. 
J.  Douglas.    Price,  $1.00. 

Volume  I.  complete.    Price,  $2.00. 

Other  numbers  will  be  announced  hereafter. 
For  further  particulars  apply  to 

PROFESSOR  ED  WEST  R.  A.  SELIGMAN, 

Columbia  College,  New  York. 


COLLEQE 


OF" 


Social  Economics 

34    UNION    SQUARE, 

NEW    YORK. 


The 


GEORGE  GUNTON,  President. 

•THE  COIylz-eGE)  was  organized  primarily 
to  teach  a  system  of  Social  Economics 
suited  to  American  Citizenship. 

The  Academic  Course  includes,  besides 
Economics,  History,  English  Language  at. 
literature,  Modern  Languages,  some  of  the 
higher  Mathematics,  Physics,  Chemistry, 
Parliamentary  Law,  etc.  There  is  also  a 
a  Commercial  Course  occupying  one  year. 
The  Lecture  Courses  by  President 
Gunton    embrace    Popular   Discussions    of 

SOCIAL  ECONOM.ST  BU.LD.NG.  Economics. 

Social  Economist,"  a  monthly  magazine  edited  by  President  Gunton  and  Starr 


Hoyt  Nichols,  treats  subjects  allied  to  Economics.    The  price  is  20  cents  per  copy  or  J2.00  per 

annum.    Sold  by  all  dealers.    Sample  copies  free. 

This  institution  having  outgrown  its  former  quarters,  the  large  building  represented 
above  has  been  secured,  where  commodious  Class  Rooms  and  Lecture  Hall  are  arranged  ;  also 
Editorial  Rooms  for  the  "Social  Economist."  Tuition  fees  are  low  on  account  of  a  liberal 
endowment.    Prospectus  sent  on  application.    Address 

J.  O.  WOODS,  Business  Manager. 


There  will  soon  be  issued  from  the  Johns  Hopkins  Press  of  Baltimore,  a  work 
entitled 

AMERICA  : 

Its  Geographical   History,  1492  to  the  Present, 

By  DR.  WALTER  B.  SCAIFE, 

which  invites  attention  to  the  much-neglected  borderland  that  unites  history  and 
geography. 

Starting  with  the  discovery  of  Guanahani  in  1492,  it  shows,  by  reference  to 
maps  and  writings  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  gradual  evolution  of  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  coast-lines  in  the  consciousness  of  Europe.  The  third  chapter  sketches 
the  slow  growth  of  knowledge  in  Europe  regarding  the  vast  interior  of  the 
American  continents  and  of  the  polar  regions.  There  is  a  full  discussion  of  the 
historical  uses  and  the  theories  as  to  the  origin  of  the  names  America,  Canada, 
and  Brazil.  The  history  of  our  border  lines,  national  and  state,  then  engages  the 
writer's  attention  ;  who  passes  from  that  subject  to  the  geographical  work  of  the 
national  government,  in  treating  which  he  has  been  aided  by  much  information 
furnished  direct  from  the  offices  of  the  Coast  and  Geological  Surveys.  In  a  Supple- 
ment Dr.  Scaife  undertakes  to  prove,  contrary  to  the  general  opinion,  that  the 
Mississippi  River  is  not  always  or  even  usually  to  be  understood  when  the  Spanish 
geographers  mention  the  Rio  del  Espiritu  Santo.  The  work  will  be  illustrated  by 
phototypes  made  from  photographs  of  the  famous  Weimar  and  other  maps,  taken 
specially  for  the  author.     The  volume  will  be  sold  for  $1.50. 


NOTES  SUPPLEMENTAEY  TO  THE  STUDIES. 

The  publication  of  a  series  of  Notes  was  begun  in  January,  1889.  The 
following  have  thus  far  been  issued  : 

MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND.  By  Dr.  ALBEBT  Shaw,  of  Minne- 
apolis, Reader  on  Municipal  Government,  J.  H.  U. 

SOCIAL  WORK  IN  AUSTRALIA  AND  LONDON.  By  WILLIAM  GKEY,  of  the 
Denison  Club,  London. 

ENCOURAGEMENT  OP  HIGHER  EDUCATION.  By  Professor  HEBBEBT  B. 
Adams. 

THE  PROBLEM  OP  CITY  GOVERNMENT.  By  Hon.  Seth  Low,  President  of 
Columbia  College. 

THE  LIBRARIES  OP  BALTIMORE.  By  Mr.  P.  R.  Uhleb,  of  the  Peabody  In- 
stitute. 

WORK  AMONG  THE  WORKINGWOMEN  IN  BALTIMORE.  By  Professor 
H.  B.  ADAMS. 

CHARITIES:  THE  RELATION  OP  THE  STATE,  THE  CITY,  AND  THE 
INDIVIDUAL  TO  MODERN  PHILANTHROPIC  WORK!.  By  A.  G.  WABNEB, 
Ph.  D.,  sometime  General  Secretary  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society  of  Baltimore,  now 
Associate  Professor  in  the  University  of  Nebraska. 

LAW  AND  HISTORY.  By  Walteb  B.  Scaife,  LL.  B.,  Ph.  D.  (Vienna),  Reader  on 
Historical  Geography  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

THE  NEEDS  OF  SELF-SUPPORTING  "WOMEN.  By  Miss  CLABE  DE  GBAF- 
FENBEID,  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  Washington,  D.  C. 

THE  ENOCH  PRATT  FREE  LIBRARY.     By  LEWIS  H.  STEINEB,  Litt.  D. 

EARLY  PRESBYTERIANISM  IN  MARYLAND.     By  Rev.  J.  W.  MclLVAIN. 

THE  EDUCATIONAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  U.  S.  NATIONAL  MUSEUM.  By 
Professor  O.  T.  Mason. 

UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  AND  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  THE  FUTURE. 
By  RICHABD  G.  MOULTON. 

These  Notes  are  sent  without  charge  to  regular  subscribers  to  the  Studies.  They  are  sold  at  five 
cents  each;  twenty-five  copies  will  be  furnished  for  $1.00. 


ANNUAL  SERIES,  1883-1891. 

Nine  Series  of  the  University  Studies  are  now  complete  and  will  be 
sold,  bound  in  cloth,  as  follows : 

SERIES  I —LOCAL  INSTITUTIONS.     479  pp.     $4.00. 

SERIES  II.— INSTITUTIONS  AND  ECONOMICS.    629  pp.     $4.00. 

SERIES  III.— MARYLAND,  VIRGINIA,  AND  WASHINGTON.     595  pp.     $4.00. 

SERIES  IV.— MUN ICIPAL  GOVERNMEST  AND  LAND  TENURE.  600pp.  $3.50. 

SERIES  V.— MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT,  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.    559 
pp.     $3.50. 

SERIES  VI.— THE    HISTORY    OF    CO-OPERATION    IN    THE    UNITED 
STATES.     540  pp.     $3.50. 

SERIES  VII.-SOCIAL  SCIENCE,  MUNICIPAL  AND  FEDERAL  GOVERN- 
MENT.    628  pp.     $3.50. 

SERIES  VIII.— HISTORY,  POLITICS,  AND  EDUCATION.     625  pp.     $3.50. 

SERIES  IX.— EDUCATION,    POLITICS    AND    SOCIAL    SCIENCE.      640    pp. 
$3.50. 

The  set  of  nine  volumes  is  now  offered,  uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  for  library  use,  for  $27.00. 
The  nine  volumes,  with  eleven  extra  volumes,  twenty  volumes  in  cloth,  for  $42.00.  The  eleven 
extra  volumes  (now  ready)  will  be  furnished  together  for  $16.00. 


All  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  The  Johns  Hop- 
kins Press,  Baltimore,  Maryland.    Subscriptions  will  also  be  received, 
or  single  copies  furnished  by  any  of  the  following 
American  Agents: 

New  York.— G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons.  Cincinnati.— Robert  Clarke  &  Co. 

New  Haven.— E.  P.  Judd.  Indianapolis. — Bowen-Merrlll  Co. 

Boston.— Damrell  &  Upham ;  W.  B.  Clarke  Chicago.— A.  C  McClurg  &  Co. 

&  Co.  Louisville.— Flexner  Brothers. 

Providence.— Tibbitts  &  Preston.  San  Francisco.— Bancroft  Company. 

Philadelphia.— Porter  &  Coates  ;    J.  B.  New  Orleans.— George  F.  Wharton. 

Lippincott  Co.  Richmond.— J.  W.  Randolph  &  Co. 

"Washington.— W.  H.  Lowdermilk  &  Co.;  Toronto.— Cars-well  Co.  (Limited). 

Brentaao's.  Montreal.— William  Foster  Brown  &  Co. 

European  Agents: 

Paris.— A.  Hermann  ;   Em.  Terquem.  London.— Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner 

Strasshurg.— Karl  J.  Trtibner.  &  Co.;  G.  P.  Putanm's  Sons. 

Berlin.  — Puttkammer     &     Miihlbrecht  ;  Frankfort.— Joseph  Baer  &  Co. 

Mayer  &  MUller.  Turin,  Florence,  and  Rome.— E.  Loe- 

Leipzig.— F.  A.  Brockhaus.  scher. 


THE  REPUBLIC  OF  NEW  HAVEN. 

A  HISTORY  OF  MUNICIPAL  EVOLUTION. 
Br  CHARLES  H.  LEVERMORB,  Ph.  D. 
{Extra  Volume  One  of  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.) 
The  volume  comprises  342  pages  octavo,  with  various  diagrams  and  an  index. 
It  will  be  sold,  bound  in  cloth,  at  $2.00. 


PHILADELPHIA,   1681-1887: 

A  HISTORY  OF  MUNICIPAL  DEVELOPMENT. 

By  Edward  P.  Allinson",  A.  M.,  and  Boies  Penrose,  A.  B. 

{Extra  Volume  Two  of  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.) 
The  volume  comprises  444  pages  octavo,  and  will  be  sold,  bound  in  cloth,  at 
$3.00  ;  in  law-sheep  at  $3.50. 


Baltimore  and  the  Nineteenth  of  April,  1861. 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  WAR. 
By  GEORGE  WILLIAM  BROWN, 

Chief  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Bench  of  Baltimore,  and  Mayor  of  the  City  in  1861. 

{Extra  Volume  Three  of  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science. ) 
The  volume  comprises  176  pages  octavo,  and  will  be  sold,  bound  in  cloth,  at$l. 


Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States, 

By  GEORGE  E.  HOWARD, 

Professor  of  History  in  the  University  of  Nebraska. 

{Extra  Volumes  Four  and  Five  of  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.) 
Volume   I. — Development  of  the   Township,    Hundred  and  Shire.     Now 

ready.     542  pp.     8vo.     Cloth.     Price,  $3.00. 
Volume  II. — Development  of  the  City  and  Local  Magistracies.     In  prepa- 
ration. 


THE  NEGRO  IN  MARYLAND 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  INSTITUTION  OF  SLAVERY. 
By  JEFFREY  R.  BRACKETT,  Ph.D. 
{Extra  Volume  Six  of  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science.) 
270  pages  octavo,  in  cloth.   $2.00. 


The  extra  volumes  are  sold  at  reduced  rates  to  regular  subscribers  to  the 
"Studies." 


The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Its  History  and  Influence  in  our  Constitutional  System. 

By  W.  W.  Willoughby,  Ph.  D. 

Extra  Vol.  VII  of  the  Studies  in  History  and  Politics, 

124  pages.    8vo.     Cloth.     Price,  «1.25. 


The  Intercourse  between  the  U.S.  and  Japan. 

By  Inazo  (Ota)  Nitobe,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Professor,  Sapporo,  Japan. 

Extra  Vol.  VIII  of  the  Studies  in  History  and  Politics. 

198  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    Price,  SI. 25. 


State  and  Federal  Government  in  Switzerland. 

By  John  Martin  Vincent,  Ph.  D., 

Librarian  and  Instructor  in  the  Department  of  History  and  Politics,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

Extra  Vol.  IX  of  the  Studies  in  History  and  Politics. 

225  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    Price,  $1.50. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  six-hundredth  anniversary  of  the  foundation  of  Federal 
■Government  in  Switzerland  is  celebrated  in  1891,  this  may  be  considered  a  timely 
book.  The  history  and  constitutional  experiments  of  Switzerland  have,  however, 
a  perennial  interest  for  Americans,  for  in  no  other  country  do  governmental  institu- 
tions approach  more  closely,  in  form  and  principle,  those  found  in  the  United  States. 
The  present  work  is  essentially  a  study  of  modern  institutions,  but  always  with 
reference  to  their  source  and  development. 


Spanish  Institutions  of  the  Southwest. 

By  FRANK  W.  BLACKMAR,  Ph.  D. 
Professor  of  History  and  Sociology  in  the  Kansas  State  University. 

Extra  Vol.  X  of  the  Studies  in  History  and  Politics. 

380  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    Price,  $2.00. 

With  Thirty-one   Historical    Illustrations  of  old   Spanish   Missions,   etc.,   and  a  map 
showing  the  extent  of  Spanish  Possessions  in  North  America  in  1783. 

This  work  is  a  study  of  the  Social  and  Political  Institutions  of  Spain,  as  represented 
by  the  life  of  the  Spanish  colonists  in  America.  A  sufficient  amount  of  descriptive 
history  is  given  to  relieve  the  subject  from  the  monotony  of  abstract  discussion  and 
to  subtantiate  all  conclusions  reached  by  the  writer.  The  book  treats  of  the  founding 
of  the  Spanish  missions  in  California,  Arizona,  New  Mexico,  and  Texas,  and  portrays 
the  civilization  established  by  the  padres,  the  social  condition  of  the  Indians,  and 
the  political  and  social  life  of  the  pioneers  of  the  Southwest.  It  represents  the 
government,  laws,  municipal  organization,  and  life  of  the  colonists.  The  movement 
of  the  civil,  religious,  and  military  powers  in  the  "  temporal  and  spiritual  conquest," 
and  the  consequent  founding  of  civic  pueblos,  missions  and  military  towns  are  fully 
discussed. 

There  are  thirty-one  illustrations,  chiefly  historical.  They  reveal  some  of  the 
most  picturesque  ruins  of  America. 

■Orders  should  be  addressed  to  The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 


NEW  EXTRA  VOLUMES  NOW  READY. 


An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Constitution. 

A  STUDY  SHOWING  THE  PLAT  OF  PHYSICAL  AND  SOCIAL  FACTORS 
IN  THE  CREATION  OF  INSTITUTIONAL  LAW. 

By  MORRIS  M.  COHN, 

Attorney-at-Law. 

250  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.     Price,  $1.50. 

The  theory  underlying  this  work  is  that  Constitutions,  whether  written 
or  unwritten,  represent  the  institutional  growth  of  social  communities ; 
especially  that  institutional  growth  which  is  revealed  in  the  govern- 
mental structure  and  maxims,  and  the  jurisprudence,  of  the  given  com- 
munity. 

The  aim  of  the  author  has  been  to  show  with  somewhat  less  detail  than 
has  been  adopted  in  more  voluminous  productions,  yet  with  sufficient 
breadth  of  outline,  the  general  prevalence  of  constitutional  institutions 
among  peoples  who  have  made  any  advance  at  all  in  political  organization. 

The  illustrations  of  the  subject  have  been  taken  principally  from  the 
fields  of  politics  and  jurisprudence,  though  when  required,  or  when  it 
seemed  to  the  author  appropriate,  other  sources  were  utilized. 


THE  OLD  ENGLISH  MANOR. 

By  C.  M.  ANDREWS,  Ph.  D., 

Associate  in  History,  Bryn  Mawr  College. 

280  pages,    8vo.    Cloth.    Price,  $1.50. 

This  work  is  an  attempt  to  reconstruct  the  village  and  manorial  organization 
and  life  in  England  at  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century.  The  study  is 
based  largely  on  the  well  known  documents  Rectitudines  Singularum  Perso- 
narum  and  Qerefa,  the  latter  of  which  has  never  before  been  used  for  historical 
purposes.  In  addition  all  Anglo-Saxon  literature  has  been  put  under  contribu- 
tion, that  the  study  might  be  as  complete  as  possible.  Such  reconstruction  has 
more  than  a  merely  antiquarian  interest,  for  it  relates  to  an  important  period 
of  English  economic  history.  It  shows  the  complete  isolation  of  local  life,  the 
preeminence  of  agriculture,  and  the  secondary  importance  of  craft  and  artisan 
work.  It  brings  Anglo-Saxon  farming  methods  into  line  with  post-Norman  and 
shows  the  tenacity  of  the  old  life  and  custom,  crude  and  uneconomical  as  it 
was,  uninfluenced  to  any  great  extent  by  the  Norman  Conquest.  In  the  intro- 
duction the  writer  discusses  the  origin  of  the  manor,  suggesting  points  of  view 
somewhat  different  from  those  ordinarily  received  by  the  Germanic  school,  but 
supporting,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Seebohm,  the  freedom  of  the  village  community. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


Htfar'54  Cf? 


tiVU1 


tftf 


REC'D  LD 

MAR  1  2  ^ -10  AM 


